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)
 * ” You do not get to complain that my posts are not specific and then complain when I do get specific.”
 * And when exactly did I do this? My complaint was that you very often post personal attack warnings right after I have said something despite there having been worse said earlier (and I can provide multiple instances if you like). This feels like singling out, maybe it is because I don’t notice it happening to others - but I very much doubt it.
 * I completely understand that admins are busy, but I don’t accept your complaints that certain threads are too long - because a lot of the time they reached their natural end a long time ago and are only getting longer because they’re not being resolved. The Monk discussion is a perfect example; all the unique points were posted over a month ago and nobody has shown an interest to join in, but it still hasn’t been closed and therefore just gets longer with people reinforcing the same points.
 * And personally I’d appreciate it if you didn’t use foul language directed at me or on my page, thanks. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  22:39, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

The personal attacks rules are extremely strict. The other month I was in a discussion with another user who made such a confusing comment that I suggested they hadn’t listened to the story in question. For this I was warned against personal attacks, so I messaged the admin and explained why I thought they hadn’t listened to the story - and was blocked.

Yet, the same admin suggested I hadn’t listened to a story once (which I still have evidence of) and nothing happened to them. Is it a case of one rule for one? We’re not made of glass - there’s a big difference between a personal attack and a mere comment.

Well... this is the same site that blocked me for over three months for adding that Yasmin Khan was Pakistani (as apparently it was a spoiler) so I can’t be too shocked. Xx-connor-xX ☎  22:49, July 23, 2020 (UTC)
 * It was intended to be a reply to @DiSoRiEnTeD’s proposed changes to the personal attack policy, I must have added onto the one beneath.
 * I’m over it now, but you were the admin in question. I suggested another user hadn’t listened to a certain story, and you warned me against it. So I came to you and explained why I thought they hadn’t listened to the story, and you blocked me without the ability to edit talk pages so I couldn’t challenge it.
 * If a user makes a statement such as, I don’t know, “Who is Ruth Clayton?” or “Who is the Fugitive Doctor?” then I think it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that said person hasn’t seen the episode. This user in question made a similar statement about an audio which, at the time, made me think that they hadn’t listened to the story. I don’t believe I was rude or disrespectful, I just pointed out that they shouldn’t be joining in a discussion about something they haven’t listened to, and you warned me against it. Then I came to you to explain myself and you blocked me.
 * I thought discussions with admins would have been free reign to discuss potential rule breaks, but obviously not? Xx-connor-xX ☎  23:23, 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)

Since my name came up
So clearly my writing can at times take on a rather "bemused" tone. But I would like to think that I've kept it to arguing that someone's positions are in some way nonsensical rather than the person themselves. With that said, I am cognizant of the fact that my writing style can just be somewhat abrasive and come off poorly. I've taken some pains to tone it back, at least in the short term. Najawin ☎  02:10, July 24, 2020 (UTC)

Image question
Hello there, I found an image of mine being used without my permission on one of the pages. However I am happy for it to be used if the copyright is acknowledged. I tried to replace the image with one that had my watermark yesterday, but after reading your comment about policies I see that that is not allowed. Like I said I'm happy for it to remain on the page, but would like to be acknowledged as the photographer and copyright owner.

The image in question is this one of the actor Brian Cox https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Brian_Cox_%28actor%29

Kind regards, Kuljit Kuljitthetog ☎  14:40, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Closing How Many Monks?
Why was the How Many Monks discussion closed? I was not "Trying.." anything. It was a valid discussion. Where in 4-Dimensional Vistas is any character called "the Monk"? Where in 4-Dimensional Vistas does any character dress like a monk? And that goes on and on. eriously, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind having The War Chief and Magnus (Flashback) being two entirely separate articles, whereas a variety of contradictory "Meddling Monks", "Mortimuses" and "Time Meddlers" are all on one page, especially since there is no clear narrative to link them all as a single character. I have read threads, and this wiki's Rules, and I'm still none the wiser.

If this article's basic Rules are : 'Tardis Data Core has a self-contained headcanon, and all articles must reflect', I can happily accept that. But as it is, I(and I'm sure others) simply don't know. As the Rules appear to change as it suits any relevant issue. How much information is enough? If, hypothetically speaking, a character sees "a man with curly hair and a long scarf, an attractive blonde woman, and a robot dog", have they just seen the Fourth Doctor, Second Romana and K9? Or would this wiki only reflect what the text says?

If one story tells us that the Doctor had a friend at the Academy called "Magnus", and then another story has a section at the Academy, where the Doctor has a friend called "Magnus", is that the same Magnus? And, if not, why?

And, following that, if a Time Lord called "Mortimus" appears, and it made explicit he never knew the Doctor from Gallifrey...and then later a Time Lord called "Mortimus" appears, and it is made explicit that he was at the Academy with the Doctor, and the two were good friends, are those two characters called "Mortimus" now the same character? And, if so, why?

If Rose mentions visiting "Justicia" in a television episode, is that necessarily the same visit in a recent novel, if she doesn't mention the specifics of the visit?

Again, in my opinion, this wiki seems to be very inconsistent about what is enough to either accept or disqualify two references/stories as meaning the same thing. I have read through pages, and it seems inconsistent to me. 197.83.246.23talk to me 09:01, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

RE: Categories
Thanks. I'll make a start on removing them :) LauraBatham ☎  13:21, August 7, 2020 (UTC)

The Sixth Doctor and Peri Cover
I notice that it was changed to the original uploaded file, the reason it reuploaded because the original was too big with the image upload policy that it is over 100KB. SleepyTechnoKid ☎  03:16, August 14, 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: It's all cool, I just want to let you know on the reason as stuff like those can be easily overlooked. :) SleepyTechnoKid ☎   05:05, August 18, 2020 (UTC)

Non-existent Marie Celeste
I see you have reversed my correction to the cartoon of Doctor Who on board the Mary Celeste. The name of the ship described on this site, and as depicted in the TV episode, was Mary Celeste. It was a real ship, and Mary Celeste was its name in real life. Marie Celeste was the name of a fictional ship in a short story written by Arthur Conan Doyle. Doyle's story was based on the true events surrounding the disappearance of Mary Celeste's crew, but he added a great deal of imagined detail and (probably accidentally) named the ship Marie Celeste. As the Oxford Dictionary says, "the form Marie Celeste was popularized by an account written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in 1884, and is now commoner in allusive use." This site really ought not to perpetuate this misunderstanding. I suggest the correction be reinstated. 109.156.71.8talk to me 20:49, August 14, 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read T:NO RW and Tardis:In-universe perspective. Shambala108 ☎  22:09, August 14, 2020 (UTC)

Possibly error
Hello, User:Shambala108. Apologies for bothering you with this, but I did not know who else to turn to. My daily edit appears to have reset four-to-five day ago, but my contribution list has edits going back over a hundred day, so I'm not sure what going on there?BananaClownMan ☎  21:22, August 14, 2020 (UTC)

Re:IP User
My thought is that if they're leaving messages on user talk pages or making quick edits in response to someone undoing their edits, they're probably aware enough of the workings of the wiki to know about Special:WikiActivity or that as an IP user they have a talk page still. It's an imperfect solution, surely. But there's no good one in this situation. Najawin ☎  03:23, August 15, 2020 (UTC)

Mondasian colony ship editing
Hey, I've been editing the page Colony ship (World Enough and Time) recently to expand it and add info from Alit in Underland. I noticed you reverted the last edit I did, I just wanted to know why exactly. I'm not sure what you mean by "pipe switches". CyberFoundries900 ☎  09:44, August 26, 2020 (UTC)

Miranda
Hey, just wondering about the validity of Miranda (comic story). Why is it considered valid if it is unfinished? I get that part of it was released, and I haven't read the released parts of it, but the wording of the article suggests that it's an unfinished story arc printed in several issues rather than a series of comic stories which was cut short. Either the tags are incorrect, the article is worded poorly, or I'm missing something (which is very likely). Thanks, Belegityt ☎  19:40, August 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I was mistaken on this. Sorry for the inconvienience, Belegityt ☎  21:07, August 26, 2020 (UTC)

Your website is a waste of existence
So, a while back, I tried starting a discussion on the Panoptiocon, explaining how it was clear from the original target novels that the character referred to as The War Chief is the same character as The Master. I spent a lot of time and effort to present the case. At which point a person went out of their way to derail the entire discussion. And the the kicker, you simply closed the thread and said "There's enough evidence against the Master being the War Chief.." without actually mentioning even one thing. Later, after discovering that the character of "Magnus" from the DWM comic Flashback was treated by this wiki as an entirely separate character as the character "Magnus" from Divided Loyalties, as there was apparently "not enough information to link them", I asked a serious question.. Namely "What narrative material is there to link the character called the Time Meddler in 4-Dimensional Vistas to the character portrayed by Peter Butterworth on television in the 1960's"? After all, this article states on the 4-Dimensional Vistas article " It was the first story to feature the Monk after his final television appearance in 1966." Even though, no character called the Monk appears in 4-Dimensional Vistas. So, simply..what narrative links this character to this "the Monk"? And again, instead of any answer, you simply locked the article and stated "And I'm not going to repeat myself here..." But repeat WHAT? You gave no valid reason for locking the first thread. So, it is simple, this wiki has nothing to do with what "narrative states". No, this wiki is ENTIRELY your personal head canon. Whatever your own personal fanfic is, that's what "counts". The exact same thing that disqualifies "Magnus" who was friends with the Doctor at the Academy from one story being the same character as "Magnus" who was friends with the Doctor at the Academy in another story...SHOULD annihilate any chance of Peter Butterworth's character from The Daleks' Master Plan being the same character as the renegade Time Lord in 4-Dimensional Vistas? So, what's the difference? Simple. YOU don't want Magnus to be the same character as Magnus. Whereas YOU want to outright LIE and say that a character called "the Monk" appears in 4-Dimensional Vistas, when that clearly NEVER HAPPENED. As such, this is not a "Fandom" website. It's more like your personal fanboy website. And after all that, you never gave one single example of this "enough evidence against the Master being the War Chief", because we all know that you have absolutely nothing to back up that statement. All you have is the ability to lock pages when they get too problematic for you, and create clashes with your fanfiction. As such, you can keep this wiki. And you can keep your silly little fanboy "canon".

And to summarise: 1) There is no character in Doctor Who called "the War Chief". 2) The FIRST TIME that there was ever a character in Doctor Who called "the Monk" was in The Book of Kells. 3) Edward Brayshaw and Roger Delgado were playing the exact same Time Lord. 4) Peter Butterworth's character wasn't even supposed to be a Time Lord. Because Time Lords didn't even exist until 1969. 5) Whoever Rufus Hound is performing very badly as in Big Finish Audios, it can't possibly be the same character that Peter Butterworth played on television in the 1960's.

And, oh yeah, NO CHARACTER CALLED "THE MONK" APPEARED IN 4-DIMENSIONAL VISTAS.

This website is one big lie after another, all stitched together with ignorance, arrogance, and bullying tactics. Goodbye forever. 12:46, August 30, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Why do my threads keep getting removed?
I agree with your assertion that users can't learn from their mistakes if a mod corrects it for them. But I must also point out that outright deleting the thread with no word isn't in any way helpful either. Even now, I'm not entirely sure what rule(s) my threads violated because nobody has directed me to the problem, which just leaves me free to making the same mistake again and again. WaltK ☎  16:14, September 5, 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect licensing
I noticed you deleted the two images I uploaded "File:Tom Baker Rasputin Nicholas and Alexandra 1971.jpg" and "File:Call of Duty WWII Drostan Hynd David Tennant.jpg" due to having the incorrect license. Which license would've been the correct to use as neither are from BBC licensed productions? --EpsilonGamma ☎  04:56, September 8, 2020 (UTC)

Spoiler?…
Hey!

You edited a mention of a certain series' title out of my forum post on the Dalek Prime thread. I won't repeat it here until you explain more clearly, but… are you sure? This series has in fact started release. Several stories that are part of it, most notably Defender of the Daleks, have already been released, and consequently, although the main page itself still contains spoilers, it is linked to, freely, on non-spoilered page in the main Wiki namespace. Like an ongoing season of the TV series, in fact.

So I don't really see why mention of the title should now be taboo in the forums? --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  15:44, September 9, 2020 (UTC)

Rosita
Hi! I'm curious as to why you undid my July 31 edits to Rosita, as your edit summay is unclear. Thank you. :) Captain Infinity  ☎  09:20, September 10, 2020 (UTC)

Remake/Remodel (short story)
Hi, I stumbled upon Remake/Remodel (short story) and saw a regular tag. Then I proceeded to check the edit history for that page. It was indeed originally added as a regular, which Borisashton chaged to a , as it was in direct violation of the policy present on my original tag; a few months later, however, you reverted it to a regular rename tag, but there was no edit summary, and there was never a discussion on the talk page about it.

So, what I'm asking is (and I know it's been almost two years since this happened), is there any deeply specific reason why you did it? At least on first sight, it does look like a torchwood_cascade_CDRIP.tor (audio story) - or rather, torchwood_cascade_CDRIP.tor (audio story) - where we have a "wrong" title, but fix it via (or am I missing something here? ;p). OncomingStorm12th ☎  22:57, September 10, 2020 (UTC)

Help
Hi. I was trying to add an infobox to the Calypso Jonze article and I think I may have broken it somewhat. I don't know what's gone wrong, can you help me fix it? BelcherMorganJames ☎  20:14, September 23, 2020 (UTC)

Events
Hi, I feel I'm at least owed the chance to defend my case and at least engage in a debate about whether the pages belong. I'm sorry if that sounded rude; this is just a matter I want to get closure for as opposed to just a dismissal. All the best. Toy  Story   Fan  23:29, September 26, 2020 (UTC)

How The Monk Got His Habit
Can you please review Scrooge MacDuck's ruling on How The Monk Got His Habit (rename) discussion? I believe his ruling to be completely incorrect, and I knew he would use his newfound powers to forcefully conclude the debate in his favor - hence why I opposed his promotion. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  10:50, October 4, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi!


 * As I think the pained tone of my closing post at Thread:275671 will demonstrate, I did no such thing. I closed the debate as ultimately T:POINT-violating, I closed it in favour of retaining current practice rather than the outcome I argued for during the original debates, and most importantly, I specifically asked that people leave the Monk debate(s) alone unless there's anything new to be said, because we as a Wiki have bigger things to fry.


 * For that same reason, if you want to take the time and energy to review that case again I won't stop you. I'm honestly past the point of caring overmuch about the Wiki's coverage of this story. The point is that the Great Monk Controversy is precisely the sort of out-of-control, festering minefield that I really want us to put a final word on now, and leave behind once we move to the DLP Forums.


 * At any rate, and whether you make any late additions to the Definitive Policy Of The Monk And Please Let's All Never Speak Of It Again: I am blocking User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 for a period of two weeks for directly disobeying my admin instruction to not dredge up the matter of the Monk again. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  11:00, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

"Tally"
Hey! Happened to see your latest edit to your user page. Not exactly sure what "the Tally" is in the context of said user page — but you linked to the page Tally which, at least for now, is specifically about the piece of lore from TV: The Power of Three. Are you sure that was what you meant to link to? This surprises me somewhat, as I was under the impression that you had little interest in BBC Wales's Doctor Who. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  22:53, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

IU and OOU dab terms
W/ regards to Destiny (video game): I do of course know we do, as a rule, try not to have identical dab terms for IU and OOU things. But in some cases it's not really avoidable.

We rarely have cause to call an in-universe concept a "TV story", so we're good there, but I'd raise you Dynasty (TV series) and Captain Scarlet (TV series) as examples of cases where we don't really have a choice, and so go with a dab term that also happens to be used for OOU pages.

I feel like Destiny's case is more similar to those than to, say, Dracula (book), where you can go with a different dab term than "(novel)" without it feeling forced. It's unfortunate that we have to dab it as a "(video game)", but I don't think "(game)" serves the needs of our reader. It's, anyway, also occasionally used for OOU things — War of the Daleks (game), for example. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  21:42, October 11, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! Would still appreciate your input on this whenever you get round to it (and also an answer to my question above, although that one is mostly personal curiosity, I'll admit). --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  14:18, October 25, 2020 (UTC)
 * My curiosity increases. ;)


 * And while what you do in the privacy of your userpage is your own business, I would please draw your attention to the fact that if you have the time to do some brief editing on the Wiki, it should perhaps be more urgent for you to catch up on your talk page messages (especially questions of actual policy) than to make odd tallies that nobody else on the Wiki understands. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  01:45, October 27, 2020 (UTC)

Categorising First-Person prospective
Dear Shambala108 I was trying to add a category for storys set in the First-person perspective, however iv notice you been taken them down.

I was just wondering why you have done this? And if there's any procedure I need to take to let my category up? Thank you!

Sincerely McEdam
 * Just so you know, I've pointed User:Mcedam to the policies they were missing — so at least you won't have to worry about replying to this message. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  01:53, October 27, 2020 (UTC)

Serious harassment from admin Scrooge MacDuck
Hello, I genuinely need help.

I feel extremely targeted by this site's latest admin User:Scrooge MacDuck.

When he was being nominated for the role of admin I was one of the only people that voted against him - less than forty eight hours after he was promoted to the role I was given a two week ban. Please note that, following him being promoted, I had only made a single edit.

The reason for my ban was a "T:POINT violation" because I consulted an admin, yourself, to question why a newly promoted admin was able to go through all his previous discussions and resolve every single one to his favour. He accused me of reopening the "How The Monk Got His Habit?" discussion, which I frankly did not do.

Another user also had an issue with this, but made comments about it on another Wikia - seemingly scared of retaliation by Scrooge.

Since my unbanning, I have not made any edits - genuinely out of fear - but today I made a single edit (someone had changed River Song's species despite their being an unresolved discussion - so I simply reverted the edit and stated that a consensus hadn't been reached on the talkpage). Apparently this single edit was worthy of an extremely long, and aggressive, warning on my talkpage accusing me of "stirring up trouble" and claiming "admin authority".

I have no idea what to do, so I am coming to you for help and will also be messaging a few of the other admins as it is clear that I am being targeted. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  17:18, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
 * "Another user also had an issue with this, but made comments about it on another Wikia - seemingly scared of retaliation by Scrooge."
 * To clarify, as this was me, this is not the case. I simply know that this wiki is quite willing to block people over relatively benign rules violations that could be best solved with a warning (for example see Talk:Fanboys (short story)). I had no desire to violate T:POINT, even if I had general qualms about the subject (far smaller ones than you're attempting to suggest). Najawin ☎  17:26, October 28, 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not at any point violate T:POINT. I witnessed something from an new admin, he literally had his powers for little over a day, which I did not think was right. Instead of violating this site I posted on an admin's talkpage questioning what had occured. This recieved me a two week ban.


 * Then today I noticed a change to a page which I didn't agree with - a discussion is still ongoing about said change - and so I reverted it. I then got a long winded message about this.


 * The message is clear as day. In it User:Scrooge MacDuck threatens to ban me unless I make a public apology to him by Sunday, for something I know that I haven't done wrong. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎  17:29, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
 * …Shambala, I refer you to my previous messages to you on the subject of DiSoRiEnTeD1's behaviour both here and on Community Central. At any rate, obviously, DiSoRiEnTeD1's good-faith vote against my admin nomination has nothing whatever to do with the fact that I blocked him. I blocked him because his next edit (or close enough) after I expressly told him not to restart the Monk discussion was to ask you to reopen the Monk discussion.


 * Furthermore, if he believed I was in the wrong in doing this — he had but to say so on my talk page on another Wiki. My blocking message to him specifically encouraged him to read through Help:I'm blocked, which advised him to do so. He did not.


 * I also find it hard to characterise a message wherein which I gave him the option to avoid another ban just by apologising for his previous policy violation — even though a block would have been well warranted at this point — as "incredibly aggressive".


 * In a further effort to disprove DiSoRiEnTeD1's misplaced fear that I somehow have it out for him, I will not block him for even this, but leave it up to you and other admins what needs to be done with him. But truly, I'm not sure I know why I bother at this point. I keep telling DiSoRiEnTeD1 to talk things out with me calmly, and he keeps accusing me (and misrepresenting his own policy-breaking behaviour) instead. DiSoRiEnTeD1, if you're reading this, please talk to me, I mean that. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  17:32, October 28, 2020 (UTC)

This will be my final comment on the matter until an admin has had a chance to review the situation. I have compiled a detailed account of my version of events; DiSoRiEnTeD1  ☎  18:29, October 28, 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm not at all sure it is correct, by policy, to link to an off-site image-hosting site. I'll leave DiSoRiEnTeD1's link online for the time being because it would rather look as if I were suppressing evidence if I removed it, but this is quite irregular.


 * (Of course, I use the word "evidence" very loosely. DiSoRiEnTeD1's "version of events" combines a picture of him asking you, User:Shambala108, to weigh in on the Monk discussion, with a claim that he "did not even think about reopening the Monk discussion". I fear DiSoRiEnTeD1 just plain doesn't understand what T:POINT is all about.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  18:43, October 28, 2020 (UTC)