User talk:Shambala108

If you need to leave a message here on my talk page, please follow a couple of guidelines: --
 * Please don't forget to sign your posts. 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.

Thumbnail
What exactly does "the thumbnail of this image was too indistinct" mean, and why were my images removed for that? (JMC Red Dwarf ☎  21:26, March 16, 2018 (UTC))

Images
Hey. uhm, i don't know how to change the file name without them not working. and i didn't specify the size of them User:Jantoshipper 18:49 17 March 2018

Wikipedia template
Hi, your message to User:Sam601 caught my eye and I was just wondering exactly why the wikipediainfo template can't be used on the Doctor pages. Is it because it is written from a real world perspective or because it has less information on it and is considered inferior?

If so, would it be okay to put the template on pages like The Doctor (The Girl Who Loved Doctor Who) since that page contains less information and since the events of that story happen in the "real world?"

P.S. On a completely unrelated note when I was typing your name into the search bar I noticed the user pages of the vandalistic accounts Shambala08 and Shambala weighs 2500 pounds still existed which you might or might not want to delete. Thanks for your time. --Borisashton ☎  12:37, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

Carvaggio rename
Hi, I noticed you reverted my speedy rename template back into a rename on Carvaggio? Just wondering why -- I relistened to that bit from the audio, and it really sounds like "Caravaggio". – N8 ☎ 13:55, April 6, 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding trouble
Hello, Shambala108, I hope you are doing well.

Listen, I'll cut to the chase. I've been having trouble with an unregistered user on pages Ninth Doctor, Rose Tyler and Martha Jones concerning whether the narrator for audios is a valid other voice actor, and removing the invalid Rachel MacFarlene from Rose's page. I've tried to be civil and explain how this wiki does not count narrators as voice actors unless its an in-character narration, but I'm not getting through to them, and I have a dissertation I should really being focusing on. I was hoping that you could step in and give your opinion before this gets out of hand. Don't worry, I'll support whatever decision you come too, as you have a far better understanding about this wiki than I do.

I just wanted to let you know before what always happens happens; they'll complain to an admin that I'm being unfair, I'll get blocked for a few months without an opportunity to defend my actions, they'll course trouble and get blocked themselves, and then I'll return and have missed out on editing new articles that I could have helped with. I really don't want that to happen again, especially since I plan to update the Eighth Doctor's psychological profile once my dissertation is done in a month's time, so I'm coming to you first this time to avoid that outcome.

Hope I'm not troubling you, Sincerely, BananaClownMan ☎  15:10, April 25, 2018 (UTC)


 * UPD. Both users have been blocked for a day for an edit war across several pages. I would not call the behaviour of either of them civil. Amorkuz ☎  15:44, April 25, 2018 (UTC)

Why is all my stuff that I'm adding and sourcing constantly being removed and no one else's is, even if I use other people's sources? And why is IMDb not a reliable source but facebook and some random guys from twitter are reliable sources ?

Sincerely , Craig Winder @

Trap For Fools
Hi, just saw your edit on this page and had a quick question. I understand fully that the policy of this wiki is to use double quotation marks, as well as the parts about honourifics, and would have no hesitations were it a section of text that had been come up with by a user. However, in this case it came directly from the summary created by the publisher, word for word, symbol for symbol. Does this policy also cover changing the formatting of officially published information, since technically speaking, what is on the page now is not the official summary, but a slight modification of it.

Just wanted some clarification, thanks for your time. 0003c9fe ☎  12:41, May 30, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up, I'll be sure to keep it in mind when doing future summaries (and anything else that is copied). 0003c9fe ☎  14:27, May 30, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
I'm new here and I'm still figuring out the ropes. Sorry and thank you. Dedicatedlogic

Thanks
Thank you for your message and the explanation, I'm sorry for posting it there! Mirthetje ☎  16:48, June 26, 2018 (UTC)

Series 11
I've got new information for Series 11. I know it was locked due to recent leaks, but this info is genuine from the BBC's Doctor Who site itself. --DCLM ☎  21:28, June 26, 2018 (UTC)

3.2 Removed fanon
Hey, You recently deleted an edited page about Beatrice. Why is that?

ReggieAde

St Michael's Church
Hi, could you remove the prop delete on St Michael's Church (real world) now? It gathered one reply from a user sharing similar views but its quite an obscure page so I doubt it will attract anymore attention.

To be honest I don't fully understand why you reinstated it after I removed it saying that they shared no relation. I get that one shouldn't generally remove prop deletes placed by an admin and that you should make a case on the talk page but there was no case to make. It's like merging John Hart (The Sea Devils) and John Hart (Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang) because they share a name. Thanks for your time. --Borisashton ☎  11:31, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

SJA narrative trailers
Hi, I just bumped into these three pages: SJA series 1 (trailer), SJA series 3 (trailer) and SJA series 4 (trailer). The last one you labelled invalid. Probably, all of them should be treated the same. Should they all be made invalid? Amorkuz ☎  22:33, July 8, 2018 (UTC)

Video Trailer
I added the video trailer for the audio Hour of the Cybermen to its page. It came from the official Big Finish Youtube channel. Other video trailers on other pages like Order of the Daleks have not been removed, so why was mine? Thanks. Omega3454 ☎  04:09, July 17, 2018 (UTC)

SJA Warriors of Kudlak
Hi there, I was wondering what I did wrong on the edits of Warriors of Kudlak (TV story). The changes that I made were reverted without a note of explanation, so I'd like to learn what it was that was done incorrectly. Thank you. Coldraught ☎  00:22, July 23, 2018 (UTC)

Demonyms
Hello! About the demonym page you deleted earlier: I know generally there must be references from Doctor Who in-universe or out-universe to make an article, but I was based on something actually already in this wiki (the category, https://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Category%3ADemonyms).

Categories response
I positively give up editing here, I'm never going to get anything right! I'm just so tired of screwing this place up, while I'm trying to do right... Okay, I'm done. I'm sorry for messing up the categories and again breaking the wiki's policies. I won't go added categories anymore, since I clearly don't understand them; I'll leave that to other editors. But I really feel as if I should stop editing here. I'm clearly not contributing anything of worth if I'm making this many messes. I just can't deal with the stress and disappointment in myself over messing this wiki up for others with dodgy edit after dodgy edit. My apologies again and I hope I've not made you or any of the other admins mad with me.

BelcherMorganJames ☎  21:34, July 29, 2018 (UTC)

Categories
Could you be a bit more specific with the issues you have? I'd be happy to explain any queries you have. --Borisashton ☎  02:54, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

The Clocksmith's TARDIS
Hi. I was hoping that I can re-write the Clocksmith's TARDIS page with your permission. I'm asking because the last time it was uploaded it was deleted. Thank you for your time, I look forward to hearing from you. Hope you can't wait for the new series, I know I can't. --Saint2 ☎  14:50, August 4, 2018 (UTC)

It's about British words, I'm using Grammarly and I see the red. If you can, pm me about the British words that are right.

Crossed Lines does exist
Here's my proof  ADarthTokuDalek ☎  03:15. September 2, 2018 (UTC)

Re-Categories Revisited
Sorry for reverting your edit, I just wanted to respond to what you said. Anyway, you said not to remove categories that are in The Game of Rassilon. I was pointing out that I had not removed any categories from the Game, I was only removing redundant categories.

Categories I removed: -Earth Battles -21st Century Earth-based conflicts -Dalek Conflicts -London History -Human Conflicts -Cyberman Conflicts -Torchwood -The Void -Battles

None of which are in the Game of Rassilon, all of which are super-categories to another category the article is in.

The Category: The Battle of Canary Wharf and The Category: Conflicts were the only two I left.

I appreciate that you know more than me about the wiki (kinda obvious) but your explanation for the reversion didn't seem relevant, so I assumed you thought I'd removed Conflicts (I hadn't).

If there's another reason it shouldn't change, please do let me know. Danochy ☎  07:15, September 3, 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, so what you're saying is that a page with a category in the game of Rassilon should have none of it's other categories removed either? Because the page for Category Conflicts only says not to remove that specific category from pages. I didn't realise it applied to all categories on that page. Sorry for the confusion. Danochy ☎  03:37, September 4, 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I understand. Those categories I removed weren't redundant because of the Conflicts category, but because of the Battle of Canary Wharf category. Some, I noticed, were already redundant because of the Category:Battle of Canary Wharf, and others I decided (perhaps wrongly?) should be moved to this category, rather than page Battle of Canary Wharf. Perhaps I shouldn't have made this change, but it seemed like an appropriate change based on observation of other similar pages and category pages on the Wiki. Danochy ☎  04:02, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Reaching people on Discussions
Hi, I think we both had trouble reaching some Discussions-only users. They sometimes just seem to completely ignore messages we leave on their talk pages. Well, I've been given an alternative, technological reason for that. Apparently, a user who only uses Discussions through the Tardis/FANDOM app receives no notification of the message left on their talk page, can see the blocking message only for a few seconds while trying to post, and cannot click on links in these blocking messages. In other words, they are likely to be completely in the dark as to what is going on. Upon some testing, it seems that the only way to reach such users is to duplicate the messages that we already left on their talk pages to some of the Discussion threads they participate in. I am planning to start doing this for my own Discussion-based blocks. It would be good if it turns out our messages were not purposefully ignored, but rather never read. "The Times They Are a-Changin'". We better keep up. Amorkuz ☎  23:29, September 3, 2018 (UTC)


 * so, why are there no more comments?

Followup: another way is to give an extended reason for a block instead of writing it on the talk page. The block message shows up (for a short time) when a blocked person tries to post. Amorkuz ☎  23:30, September 14, 2018 (UTC)

Move
Really sorry about the move, that last one happened so long ago that I couldn't even remember if it was this Wiki that had that policy or another one that I frequented. Guess I should have checked my talk page first. –Nahald ☎  05:42, September 14, 2018 (UTC)


 * Also in regards to Jacques de Requin: Thank you for pointing that out; I hadn't realized a redirect had been left behind. No surprise, you're completely right, and I was wrong to use language that could be seen as accusatory! I've removed my comment (and the links). – N8 ☎ 00:45, September 17, 2018 (UTC)

Spouse category
Hi! On the advice of Amorkuz, I thought I'd reach out to you before I get too far into it.

I've started work on Category:Spouses and think it would be a great addition to the wiki. Many individuals have been married and I believe that it would be a helpful line of inquiry. Also, Category:Spouses of the Doctor already exists as a precedent. Your opinion on the matter would be much appreciated and I look forward to hearing from you. --Borisashton ☎  19:38, September 16, 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion debate post edit
I was really surprised to see this edit, since I didn't think those lines broke any rules. What rule did the removed excerpt break? (For the record, I don't intend to challenge or disagree with you; I just want to make sure I won't make the same mistake.) – N8 ☎ 03:39, September 19, 2018 (UTC)