User talk:Shambala108

If you need to leave a message here on my talk page, please follow a couple of guidelines: Also also please don't use my talk page to argue with other users. --
 * Please don't forget to sign your posts. Like most admins, I won't answer any post that doesn't have a signature.
 * Also, if you are starting a new topic, please add a new heading.

Calendar confusion in The Green Death
I don't understand why you deleted the calendar issue in Ep 2 of TGD yesterday. The choice of Feb 1972 in the scene at the security gate was pretty clearly designed to place the story in that month, but given that the calendar a few minutes later showed a date in April 1973 (when the show was being filmed) seems to strongly indicate that this was an error. TBH, this is at the irrelevant/amusing end of the production error spectrum, but I do think it would have reached the bar of an error to be mentioned in e.g. The Discontinuity Guide given the other sorts of things that get included in that volume (see, for example, the 1925/26 calendar blooper they describe in Carnival of the Monsters).

Re: Plot
Hey no problem, happy to do so! I have quite a few in mind that I want to do so hopefully they will be done over the next few weeks or at the very least, whenever I have a chance to purchase/listen to the audios in question. Yes I am terribly sorry, my method right now consists of listening to the audio and making notes in a microsoft word document as I listen. After that I just copy and paste it directly onto the page in question but as I've noticed, it reads the written characters literally and causes a lot of issues for which I am deeply sorry. I will be changing this in the future. I looked up sandoxing on wikipedia and while they have an explicit demonstration there, I was wondering if you could quickly fill me in on how to do a sandbox page here on tardiswiki? It will save a lot of work and time in the future. Also need to start using the "Inuse" template you mentioned before so I don't end up spamming the recent activity page. Thank you, I'm very sorry for all the inconvenience and much, much appreciated! DoctorQuoi ☎  23:14, June 21, 2020 (UTC)DoctorQuoi

Infoboxes
Okay, I understand. So infoboxes that are longer than the article and don't contain an actor can be removed? -- Saxon (✉️) 10:03, June 28, 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Shambala, I think I've caught all of them. I do agree with Saxon that we should have some definitive angle when there is need for an infobox and when there isn't. Especially in the light of these short articles but also in the longer ones, as I've sometimes had to add them to articles where they need them but are several paragraphs long especially audio characters. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 10:48, June 28, 2020 (UTC)

Re: cleanup
Thanks, that's very kind of you. Not gonna lie, I do kind of enjoy keeping things organised, so it's good to be able to put that to good use! Thanks, also, to the efforts you put in, both in that area and in adminship in general, it really does help to keep the place running smoothly. Danochy ☎  10:46, June 28, 2020 (UTC)

Images
Hiya, you recently deleted, on the basis it was in a portrait orientation, however, due to the source of the image, it's not possible to get a landscape orientation without the whole left side being a completely redundant area of space, increasing the file size, making the image take longer to load, which as far as I can recall is something this wiki doesn't want. Please can you restore the file? Epsilon the Eternal ☎  21:12, June 30, 2020 (UTC)

Help
Hello could you meet me in chat at some point as there are some things i wish to discuss --WhoCares ☎  02:30, July 1, 2020 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the swift reply, really helpful. I recently edited the plot section for "The Edge of Destruction". I assume this is something taht people don't object to but if its a issue if you could let me know. I hope you don't mind me using you as a point of contact as you were the first person to speak to me on the platform. Regarding the "Jacanda" page what route should I take to get it changed to "Takanda". Anyway thanks again for all teh help. Insert non-formatted text here

Potential sock puppet
Hi, I noticed your edits were reverted again over at Subscriber Short Trips by what appears to be a a new IP of a user with an active one month ban. Just thought I'd let you know. Danochy ☎  02:06, July 5, 2020 (UTC)

Cyber-pages
Now that the The ArcHive Tapes have been ruled as valid, can you please restore the long-deleted pages CyberTelosian and CyberNeomorph. In addition, CyberMondasian as I recall had a history before being deleted and ultimately recreated as a redirect to CyberMondan. I believe it would be useful to restore that history and possibly useful content within. --MrThermomanPreacher ☎  16:53, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

Re:Interpretation
Again, I think the point is well taken generally, and the specific issue about new users is certainly relevant. I just think this particular instance was much ado about nothing for the reasons laid out. (That said, have you actually had instances of users thinking something is policy when someone makes clear that they're interpreting a comment made by someone else? I say this with no frustration whatsoever, I'm utterly fascinated by this idea. I would love to see an example if you know of one.) Najawin ☎  17:27, July 9, 2020 (UTC)
 * this will be my only comment, as i do not want to wade in and cause a big argument.


 * i clearly remember an instance where you stated a policy to me which turned out to be wrong. it occurred here; Talk: How The Monk Got His Habit (short story), i had opened a merger discussion on the talkpage of said page (as i correctly thought at the time was the right thing to do) but you came in and stated quite firmly that i had went against policy and needed to make a thread about it; "make a thread about it. Until then, T:BOUND, you can't say that they're the same thing".


 * it later turned out that this was wrong and you didnt exactly step up to explain that you'd led me wrong. not that i found it to be too big a deal, but the way you firmly stated a policy that you actually didnt understand led me to doing something wrong so i could very well see this happening in the forums to new users too. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  18:02, July 9, 2020 (UTC)


 * Responded on your talk page. Najawin ☎  23:14, July 9, 2020 (UTC)

About the War Chief/Master Thread
While I was a relatively neutral party in principle, and I guess in practice "against", just from how the thread panned out, I would politely ask for a small waiving of T:BOUND in the event that User:Scrooge MacDuck would like to reformulate the thread. Scrooge made the point in that thread that he was thinking about making a similar thread (see: Thread:275417), but one less focused on authorial intent (see: Thread:275417). In general I found his comments far more persuasive, and I think this version of the thread would, if it comes to exist, have a different path of discussion. I ask for a waiving of T:BOUND because I'm not certain that any new evidence will actually be brought up, but instead it would feature a restructuring of evidence, away from authorial intent. (It's entirely possible such a thread by him would have new evidence, I'm just asking this in case it doesn't.) Best. Najawin ☎  06:28, July 11, 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe not T:BOUND. Whichever the one is about needing new evidence to open a thread. You understand what I mean. Najawin ☎  06:34, July 11, 2020 (UTC)


 * And no such "new" thread ever appeared. It is clear that this user did indeed "have a horse in the race". And he/she has also been caught in a lie. 197.86.143.51talk to me 07:18, July 11, 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm so deeply confused as to this response. I haven't lied anywhere here, and this comment here was just made after Shambala closed the thread. If I truly "had a horse in the race" why would I ask Shambala for special dispensation for a similar thread to be reopened in the future as soon as the thread was closed? This just makes no sense. Najawin ☎  07:26, July 11, 2020 (UTC)

The Peter Butterworth thread has been closed?
The thread on the Panopticon about Peter Butterworth was never about "this guy is the Master". It was about the NUMEROUS contradictory, and utterly incompatible, takes on what was supposed to be a single character. And yet, as stated, there are multiple differing accounts, no two of which can be reconciled.

And, very importantly, the "he is the Master" in-narrative was just one view.

But, there was very clearly another view that he was never even a Time Lord at all!

And, of course, another view that while he was a Time Lord(and never the Master) he was never actually called "the Monk".

The point was that having a page called "the Monk"(when multiple in-narrative sources state that that was NEVER his actual name, and just a disguise), and insisting that he is a Time Lord is pushing one specific line. One that by itself is utterly impossible. I believe that closing that thread was a mistake, as the actual issues were never addressed. The only one who actually gave any sort of valid response asked about "Are you saying the Monk is the Master"?, which was NEVER the actual point of the thread. It was about how to address the character who appeared in The Time Meddler and The Daleks' Master Plan, and even what species he actually was. And now that was closed before any real discussion ever took place. 197.86.143.51talk to me 06:50, July 11, 2020 (UTC)

Closing War Chief/Master thread. Why?
The thread was shut down. The reasoning you stated was:

"There's enough evidence against the Master". A single dream sequence in Divided Loyalties. But even so, it still needs to be interpreted as to who "Magnus" in Divided Loyalties actually is. And, what's more, this very wiki has a Magnus article, that is separate from both the War Chief and Master articles.

While, as just one example, in Doctor Who and the Doomsday Weapon, when the older Time Lord relates the events of The War Games when asked about the Doctor and the Master, that is clear evidence of who the Master is/was.

(I'd also like to add that the poster who said "FASA is the only source" was clearly not being truthful.)

But, the actual point was if we go with "According to one account..." Well, the ONLY ONE account who has two separate characters called 'Koschei' and 'Magnus' is Divided Loyalties. And if we use that, we have to point out that the Doctor fails to recognise the name 'Koschei' in The Dark Path. Yes, DW has contradictions, but the point is that this one obviously contradictory piece of "evidence" somehow "trumps" everything to the contrary. If this wiki has no problems having, say Legacy of the Daleks, Doorway to Hell and The Two Masters all in one page; or First Frontier, Dust Breeding and The Eight Doctors all in one page; or The Glorious Dead and The Forgotten all in one page; or The Dark Path and The Deadly Assassin all in one page; or... well you get the point. There are multiple contradictory accounts of the Master's life all in a single article. There is clear in-universe narrative evidence that Kreer from First Frontier and Seta from Dust Breeding can not possibly be the same character. And yet, they are...because DW has contradictory accounts, and this wiki apparently doesn't come down on one side as judge and jury.

Except in this case very clearly is doing that. Or rather, a small group of people on this wiki are. Because there is clear and unambiguous in-narrative evidence that the War Chief IS the Master. Period. Yes, there is also Divided Loyalties, the ONE account that allegedly states that Magnus=War Chief and Koschei=Master(even though we still need to interpret who Magnus is). yet, if this wiki can have both Kreer and Seta, both the Preacher and Richard the Footman etc. happily co-existing, then the only reason NOT to include the War Chief in this already extraordinarily contradictory tangle, must be someone's personal preference. 197.86.143.51talk to me 07:02, July 11, 2020 (UTC)
 * "(I'd also like to add that the poster who said "FASA is the only source" was clearly not being truthful.)" - I note here that this quote is taken out of context, and I was specifically referring to the Monk/Master connection. Whether or not this is correct I make no comment on, as I believe we both said our piece elsewhere. I'm just correcting the portrayal of this quote for future readers. Najawin ☎  07:09, July 11, 2020 (UTC)

Well, that thread was only about the Master and the War Chief being the same person. In addition you clearly referred to the hypercube that the War King had, which again is a nod to the War Chief, and has nothing at all to do with FASA or "the Monk". 197.86.143.51talk to me 07:13, July 11, 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to add, as the OP of the thread said, that "the Monk" isn't even relevant here. The people who created 'the War Chief' also created 'the Master', and there is clear in-narrative confirmation that the War Chief and the Master are one and the same. Najawin tries to change the issue by saying "Wouldn't that make the Monk the same character?", and the answer is 'No'.


 * Let's make an analogy. Steven Moffat created River Song and Mels. And he told us that River Song and Mels are the same person. Just the same as Dicks/Holmes/Hulke being the same crew who gave us War Chief/Master and telling us it's the same guy.


 * If we go with Najawin, we could have a problem. Because River Song is someone who can regenrate, and can travel in time, but isn't actually a Time Lord(which also completely contradicts Divided Loyalties btw). We also find out that is someone who will be/was/is the Doctor's wife. So, if we follow Najawin's reasoning as to "the Monk" having to be the Master...then that means that River Song is Iris Wildthyme, doesn't it? Well, no, obviously not.  But River Song is Mels is Melody Pond. And Iris doesn't even enter the equation. And the War Chief is the Master. And trying to force something else into the equation ends up giving as "Marinus is Mondos, and the Voord are the Cybermen!" Because, authorial intent, while not valid by this wiki, means something. There was not authorail intent that the Cybermen are the Voord, there was not authorial intent that River is Iris, and there's no evidence of authorial intent for Butterworth being Delgado. But there was obvious authorial intent for River being Mels, and undeniable authorial intent that the War Chief is the Master.


 * There's also an abundance of in-universe narrattive for it as well. 197.86.143.51talk to me 07:55, July 11, 2020 (UTC)

Image categories
Hey! Just saw that you removed Category:The Test of Time comic story images from the various images originating in that story? How come? Had I done something wrong when creating the cat? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  01:49, July 16, 2020 (UTC)

New policy or something?
Could a new policy, or something, be created when it comes to condensing threads. Several times I have seen you posting reminders about no personal attacks - when in reality your complaint is about (and I quote) “people interpret others' posts, re-explain something they posted multiple times above, and accuse others of misinterpreting them.“

None of that is, at least the way I see it, personal attacking someone - and so I often ignore your reminders, as I know that I haven’t personally attacked anyone.

If your complaint is that a discussion is getting too long-winded perhaps a policy about that could be created, but the way I see it nobody is going to listen to accusations of personal attacking others if no personal attacks took place. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  20:06, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

personal attacks
Multiple times you have posted your warnings right after I’ve said something - and it is clear that the warning was directed at me, despite far worse being said above. That, I take as a personal attack as it makes me feel extremely singled out.

This is the perfect example; you single out my comments (which I do not deem as personal attacks in the slightest) but completely ignore Scrooge’s comment on the discussion earlier to this recommending me purchase a dictionary due to a difference in interpretations... which, while I didn’t find it as a personal attack at the time, was far worse than anything I said. This is the exact same thing as the complain I made against Najawin (which you still continue to ignore) where a mistake I made was followed by the comment "anyone literate past high school English should know this".

It is incredibly frustrating to be tip-toe’ing around challenging people who are trying to control the discussion. On one discussion I was told that I wasn’t allowed to challenge ‘Monk’ as it would go against T:BOUND and then, after I created another discussion to address this story individually, I was told that I couldn’t as I the original thread would be used to define the releases. How could I reply to that without saying exactly what I did? That I personally found it to be this individual controlling the topic.

Also, while some threads - like the Lockdown thread which reached 500 comments - couldn’t be resolved by an admin any sooner (as I feel like there’s far too much to unpack). There’s some discussions (like the Monk discussion) that has had been left open for months and months despite all the required information having been presented a long time ago and nobody else showing interest to join in. So i don’t think it’s any wonder that a topic, which I view as so easy to rule upon (it was literally stated to be an unused draft of a novelisation instead of a short story itself - and so should be found on the novelisation page) would reach so many comments when it’s being left hanging after all information and viewpoints have already been said and are now just being reinforced. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  20:30, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

A question and my compliments
Thanks for closing Thread:279543 so swiftly by citing the technical reasons involved. I hadn't yet had the time to dig up those old discussions. Does this mean the quote I pulled from T:SPOIL regarding the creation of individual episodes should be finally expunged? --Borisashton ☎  22:15, July 23, 2020 (UTC)