User talk:Revanvolatrelundar

Please leave all new messages at the bottom of the page.

Please sign all messages. Any unsigned messages will be ignored.

"Ears conspiracy"
Hi, sorry this reply took so long, been wrapped up in my university finals for the past few weeks. I have looked further into what I like to call the "Ears conspiracy"; When the Doctor first looks in Rosa's mirror, he does more than comment on his ears. He full on says it "could have been worse", alluding to a recent regeneration that he hasn't seen the end result from. And, in The Beast of Babylon, he only starts talking about Rose when telling Ali about his trip to Earth from Rose, and when saying Ali has traits similar to her. Granted, he brings the whole thing up at random after showing the planet to her, so perhaps it's still a recent thing for him. But, he still talks about "when [he] met Rose, [he]'d only just regenerated", "still finding [his] feet", with a mindset of "new body, new start, new companion".

To be honest, I was kind'a hoping to not find anything when I was looking into this; I like the theory and solution you and I came up with together. But, facts like these can't be ignored, otherwise we'd be divulging into the taboo that is speculation and theorising by selecting what print we choose to follow.

Also, while I'm here, you recently moved The Bleeding Heart to before The Oncoming Storm. Does the Doctor act the same as he does in The Oncoming Storm, or is he using his blue sonic screwdriver in The Oncoming Storm? Sorry to be a pain about it, but I don't have the funds to listen to The Churchill Years or Ninth Doctor Chronicles and have to get my infomsation ftom second hand sources to update the timeline theory page. Perhaps I could interest you into editing it with me, since you clearly know more about the Ninth Doctor's Big Finish adventures than I do at the moment.

Hope you have a nice day, BananaClownMan ☎  00:45, April 3, 2018 (UTC)

I haven't found any Vortex or forums in Google search, but have made a note of it with a source tag anyway. I did find that free audio you mentioned, thank you for that. Will give it a listen when I have the time.BananaClownMan ☎  19:39, April 3, 2018 (UTC)

It would seem the novelisation of The Day of the Doctor has brought an end to our debate. According to User:NateBumber, the freshly regenerated Ninth Doctor smashed all the TARDIS mirrors due to a vow he took to never find out what face he was wearing, apparently to atone for killing the children of Gallifrey. With this knowledge, we now know why he said "could have been worse" when accidently looking at Rose's mirror; he's emotionally recovered enough to not be bothered about catching an accidental glimpse, and analyse his features. I think you're right about the "ears complex"; he's probably felt them enough to dislike them, and getting a good look at them did not changed his opinion.BananaClownMan ☎  20:46, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

You know, the novelisation of Rose might just of given us a rare moment in debating that scarcely happens; the chance for both parties to be right. I believed that Rose happened early due to the Ninth Doctor's comments about how it "could have been worse" when looking in a mirror, and authorial intend behind the line. You believed that Rose happened later due to, and I quote, "The Beast of Babylon [framing] all its story around [the ending of] Rose". In the novelization, it is mentioned that there was a twelve week gap between these two incidences, which does not seem to contradict the television story and making it valid by the wiki's rules. If my math is right, that leaves 84 days maximum unaccounted for.

I propose that at the tail end of his "early days", he meets Rose at Hendrik's, gets the Auton arm and then leaves, believing his work done. After his twelve weeks of "solitary exploits" (that can include the anthology short stories and cameo appearances), he returns to London again for whatever reason, properly the TARDIS bringing him to "where [he] needed to be" I guess.

What do you think? BananaClownMan ☎  21:26, April 20, 2018 (UTC)

"Whoisdoctorwho.co.uk" question
How come the information from Whoisdoctorwho.co.uk is in the behinds the scenes section of pages with the out-of-universe information, but the page and all related pages are categorized as in-universe information?

If its a lack of citation needed on the main sections, why not use (WC: Who is Doctor Who)? BananaClownMan ☎  16:50, April 8, 2018 (UTC)

Renaming The War
Hey there Revan! Seeing as you're (to my knowledge) the most FP-familiar admin, I was just wondering if you'd be willing to take a gander at my suggestion to rename The War to War in Heaven, based on the arguments presented at Talk:The War and The War. There's no rush at all, but I really do think it would help with disambiguation and a lot of other stuff. So let me know what you think! – N8 ☎ 21:08, July 17, 2018 (UTC)

Reaching out
Hi! I bumped into an edit that falls into the area where we had disagreements before. For reasons I will explain shortly, I believe that this is just an echo of some old decisions. I would hate to bring this to the kind of attention and emotion that these debates usually get. Thus, I am reaching out in the hope, based on your earlier positions, that we can agree on how this should be treated. The edit in question is about the first appearance of the Thirteenth Doctor. Based on your seeming reluctance in the past to accept her first appearance to be in a mini-short story published by CJB, I hope that you would consider the current state equally inappropriate. Note that first appearances can be used by editors to determine copyright for characters. So having this particular story listed as her first appearance seems to give the copyright for her to Sue Hampton.

Thing is, this novel was released back in August 2017, around the time of the mini-short. A lot of time passed since then. There were the "fireworks" around the Christmas special (a grandfather dilemma, if you will). And then the two copyright-wielding sides found a compromise. (Or at least that's how it looks to me. At the very least they stopped lobbing public cease-and-desist messages.) Given these later developments, I really would not want to rekindle the state of affairs the way it was in August 2017. This is a genuine dispute that exists objectively beyond the wiki. And a truce within and without the wiki is as good as it gets for now. Thus, I am contacting you before taking any action. I would appreciate it if you could let me know your position on what should be the first appearance of the Thirteenth Doctor. If we can agree on that, we can try to find the least invasive change that would not disturb the truce. Amorkuz ☎  00:14, September 9, 2018 (UTC)


 * Great! That makes three of us agreeing on the edit, already implemented by TheChampionOfTime. Additionally, he clarified that August 2017 was just a pre-release, so no rules need to be broken. Unbeknownst to me, the regular release of this book was in January, after the Christmas special. And discounting pre-releases is a standard practice. For instance, pre-screenings of episodes have been discounted multiple times.


 * It also turned out to be a good opportunity to compare our views and learn that they are in agreement as far as the big picture is concerned. I completely agree that CJB is part of DWU. I even agree, as a fan, that it is nice to see nods to (or cameos of) various Doctors/companions. It is the towing of some reasonable line that I have been struggling with. Since I do not have a satisfactory regular solution, lately I generally try not to edit CJB (modulo renaming edits). But cases like this must be resolved in one way or another. And while I certainly did not expect any edit wars, I was worried that, were I to perform the same edit done by TheChampionOfTime (CoT), it could be viewed as not sufficiently impartial by editors who hold CJB dear to their hearts. Thus, my original plan was to ask whether you agree and, if yes, to ask you to make the change to avoid any suspicions of one-sidedness. I believe that CoT's edit and your stated position achieve this goal. So I am quite happy with the result. I am even happier that there was no need to make an exception or invent some artificial rule in order to achieve this result.


 * Thanks for weighing in on this. And happy editing! Amorkuz ☎  23:15, September 10, 2018 (UTC)

Kahning blast from the past
Hi, it's been 7 years since this edit, but now it is very important, all of a sudden. Do you, by any chance, remember the origins of this spelling? Was "Kahn" based on any written source or purely phonetic? Thank you in advance for your time. Amorkuz ☎  08:52, January 30, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for confirming. It is exactly as I expected. I just wanted to make sure I did not miss some source in my search. The reason I was asking (as I'm sure you have guessed) is that with everything we've learned recently, "Khan" seems to be a spelling more in tune with Fallout's Yasmin's Punjabi roots, which are explicitly mentioned in the story. I did some quick digging at, and , and only one seems to be consistent with the character's provenance. Not really the conclusion I would have preferred myself, but here we are... I guess I'll go and put a rename tag then. Don't think it's clear enough for a speedy rename. Amorkuz  ☎  09:16, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Re: A Farewell
Well, thank you so much! You have no idea how much this means to me. And as you noticed, I also must thank you for partially inspiring the story by making me think deeper about the Weapon/Moment!

As for your question: well first, let me note that I didn't add info about the Greater Key to those pages. Our fellow FP fan User:TheChampionOfTime picked up on that and did it without my input (which I greatly, greatly appreciate). I've been doing my best to avoid adding anything to the wiki based on my own stories - not because I don't want to, but because I'm afraid I'd be violating some rule in the process. (I seem to recall Cody Schell was banned for something similar during the original thread about Señor 105, but that's since been deleted, so I'm not quite sure.)

But in any case, that's been the main thing stopping me from putting anything relevant on the pages for the War King and the Magistrate. I'm glad you spotted that nod to their shared identity, which I certainly intended to be an further confirmation of something that's been hinted at since their first appearances. So I agree with you that the connection should definitely be mentioned on both pages, even if I won't be the one to put it there!

[Edit: A mention on both pages *at the very least*, that is. I definitely think a merge wouldn't be out-of-order at all.]

Thank you again for such a kind review! – N8 ☎ 00:14, February 26, 2019 (UTC)

Obverse expertise sought
Hi! I was wondering if you might have access to Iris Wildthyme of Mars and, if so, whether you could help simultaneously uphold our wiki's policies and show that we as a community value the efforts authors put into entertaining us by fleshing out a page of a story. An author pleaded with admin to help her do that. I would have done it myself, but do not have this particular anthology. Sorry for bothering you otherwise. Amorkuz ☎  14:50, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

Image policy
I'm trying to get an image policy finalized, and would like to invite you to discuss it on Thread:247941.

Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  22:27, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Manager
Hi Revanvolatrelundar! My name is Playsonic2 and I’m the Fandom Wiki Manager assigned to TARDIS Data Core. I am here to help the community and be a liaison to full-time Fandom staff.

I also happen to be an administrator at the Spanish Doctor Who Wiki, which has me spending considerable amount of time here (adding interlanguage links mostly). I know this wiki wonderfully organised and that CzechOut assists with any technical issues, but if there is anything I could assist with, I would be pleased to help. I will be available on my talk page! ~Playsonic2 09:05, May 20, 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi! I’m here to share the news that Fandom has an official Discord server now. Feel free to check this blog post from Community Central, which includes more details and, of course, the server invite link. Editors from many different communities and staff members are there chatting already - you (and other editors!) are invited to join as well. Playsonic2 ☎  07:46, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

Block request
Hi. Could I ask you to take some action on the user Zanda21. This user engaged in an edit war, ignored Shambala, Borisashton and me, and made personal attacks. Shambala does not block people anymore, apparently, so I would request you to take some action. If you don't mind. :) --DCLM ☎  16:19, August 11, 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can ignore this request, I've blocked the user for violating Tardis:No personal attacks. Thanks Shambala108 ☎  16:26, August 11, 2019 (UTC)

Re:
I appreciate your clarification. It is always preferable to talk and understand each other's positions even when there are strong disagreements on them. To return the courtesy, let me expand on my explanation in the thread. The reason the stories were deleted was a combination of T:NOT and T:OFF REL. Since the book with these stories was (and still is) only in preparation, there was no reason to keep the pages. I am now aware that we have a fundamental disagreement on what is considered an official release. However, I was not aware of it while performing the deletion, again for the simple reason that there had been no community discussion before the creation of the pages. In particular, I do not equate a publication of a story by author A on the official website of the BBC (like Christmas Special) with a blog post by author A on the website of author A. Therefore, I did not see any precedents for considering these stories released.

Let me use this opportunity to clarify the question of my alleged bias against the author and/or his stories. My opposition is purely procedural. If these stories are posted by Obverse Books on their website, I change my vote to inclusion on the condition that the release date is the date of the publication on the Obverse website. There is no reason for me to care about three more FP stories. As explained in the thread, it is the manner of the publication that troubles me. After a hiatus, I am planning to continue explaining there why.

Finally, I would ask you to reread my post that you took to be "asserting" your bias. If you do that, you will see that no such assertion was made. I stated that it was not publicly known at the time whether you had any relationship to the books being discussed. It is standard practice in legal proceedings, in journalism, in scientific reviewing and on to clearly and voluntarily announce existing and clarify suspected conflicts of interests. I thank you for responding by explaining that you are not in any way related to the stories. I accepted this explanation and was completely satisfied by it. Amorkuz ☎  21:58, September 3, 2019 (UTC)