User talk:Shambala108

Can you please tell me why you undid those edits. Allonsy potter ☎  04:46, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

Unregistered user(s) vandalism
Hi. Is there anything that can be done about (an) unregistered user(s) who I believe is just going out of their way to delete information they don't like from specific pages? I brought this up to another mod last month, but for whatever reasons never heard back and the problem has only persisted.

For several days in January unregistered user, 68.111.182.93, began coming onto the wiki to vandalize the spouse section of the Twelfth Doctor page by changing River to Clara and after a week of this got banned. Two days later another unregistered user, 108.171.131.189, popped up and began deleting River's name and/or the spouse section in the infobox. A couple other IPs that are only one digit off at the end also keep coming around in early February to trade off changing the Twelfth Doctor page to do the same thing: 108.171.131.187, 108.171.131.186, and 108.171.131.188. As of late February, similar antics began on the River Song page where unregistered user 69.174.87.76 is turning "The Doctor" into "11th Doctor" in the spouse section and erasing the species2 section even though it's valid per information in AGMGTW. At the same time, the same IP is once again erasing River's name on Twelve's page and an IP that only differs at the last three digits, 69.174.87.164, changed details and added an incorrect section heading on the Twelfth Doctor page to give the River/Twelve relationship a less intimate spin.

Given the timing and the strikingly similar behavior, I can't help but suspect that this is the work of a single person flying under the radar with different IPs that aren't actually that different when you look at the chunks of time they're active. Is there anything that can be done about this? Or at the very least, can the Twelfth Doctor and River Song pages be changed to only be editable by registered users? Mewiet ☎  17:15, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes
So we don't want infoboxes on as many pages as possible? The Champion of Time  TALK  11:40, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to know why you deleted the part in 1964 (releases) that informed about Dr Who and the Daleks sweet cigarettes? HighlandFling ☎  14:38, March 14, 2016 (UTC)HighlandFling

Hey there
I sent you an email on Thursday - did you happen to receive it? Ducksoup ☎  20:45, March 28, 2016 (UTC)


 * Then you should check your spam! If it didn't land in spam, let me know. Ducksoup ☎  22:19, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a new user and added a photo to the Marcus Gilbert page but you deleted it as under the wrong licence. As I went through the list and the User licence seemed to be the one that fitted the image, can you tell me where I went wrong please? I find the whole licence issue very confusing and would appreciate your guidance as to which licence I should have used or if I cannot add a photo at all. I have consent to use the photo. Many thanks, MGFansite ☎  03:50, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

about Invasion of the Dinosaurs (TV story) - Shouldn't Sarah's reference to the song "A Nightingale Sang In Berkeley Square be mentioned as a music reference? Scout Finch ☎  15:49, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

Category:Men and Category:Women
Why did you delete my contributions? RoseTenthFan ☎  15:13, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw articles already in these categories, but now they are all in :Category:Males and :Category:Females because humans do not eem to have a special status in DWU. RoseTenthFan ☎  14:26, April 20, 2016 (UTC)

Deleting Template:The Doctor
I don't get it, what is it in Thread:193167 that explains why the template should be deleted? The comments made by SOTO were directed towards creating an infobox, not a navbox. And not only did SOTO have no problem with the navbox, I also asked P&P if there were any problems with it, and again was not told that it was an issue. Even you had a chance to stop me when you closed the thread. Please explain exactly why this should be deleted. The Champion of Time    ☎  04:37, April 24, 2016 (UTC)


 * Its been a few days, and you don't seem to have read the message. Are you not following your own talk page? I don't mean to be rude, but you've most definitely been online. Anyways, I've realized that the error may have been on my part. Are all navboxes going to be deleted to make things easier for people using the app?


 * If not, then what makes Template:The Doctor different from other navboxes? The Champion of Time     ☎  21:38, April 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I made a dreadful mistake by writing the first message in the heat of the moment, and that has only made this situation much tenser than it needs to be. If you would kindly look through the eyes of a fairly new editor, I'm sure a conclusion can reached.


 * First off, before this conversation all my previous one-on-one discussions had been rather quick (although I realize as I type this that that was probably because they were with non-admin). It was due to this (and your empty pages this user is following box) that I wrote the second message. These previous conversations led me to assume that no response to "Are there any problems?" meant that there weren't any problems (although to be fair to the weasly me of 11 days ago, I never said they approved of it).


 * Anyways, to sum the confirmation thing up: Because I was unsure of creating my first template: I asked 2 admin if it was alright and did not recieve a response from either, I took this as an apathetic "we don't see any immediate problems" and created the template.


 * So, I'm sure you'll agree that I was in the wrong there, but I do not see how I am in the wrong in the whole deletion thing. SOTO's technical problems with my original propositions were that:


 * 1) It contained far too much to sit atop a page
 * 2) Per Tardis:Point of view, there shouldn't be sections labelled past, present and future
 * 3) Infoboxes should only contain the most relevant information
 * 4) It would expand the height of the page on the app
 * The current template is not an infobox so 1, 3 & 4 do not apply, and the section divisions of past, present and future have been removed. The reason I left you a message was because you put the deletion marker on the template. I feel that this explains my point of view, so if you're willing to share yours (or agree with me) than leave a message. Don't worry, I'll be patient this time! The Champion of Time     ☎  04:20, May 4, 2016 (UTC)

Clockworks
"Clockwork" isn't an accurate term. "Clockworks" isn't a plural. The individual term is always "member of the Clockworks" or very occasionally "Clockworker."Fwhiffahder ☎  00:35, April 26, 2016 (UTC)

Wrong thing for right reasons
It was a unique situation, which is not likely to repeat: after having been informed about the policy, I do not violate it other than in this case. The reason I could not put a "Speedy rename" tag is because the placement of "puppet" is not governed by the policies, cf. the hot discussions about Zygon Osgood vs. Osgood (Zygon). In this case, however, the placement was clear to keep all puppets' names uniform within the story. The "Rename" tag I put on Elisabeth of Bavaria hung there for close to 6 months I think. I even tried bringing the topic on Panopticon, but this is too uninteresting for most people (note that the Panopticon discussion is not applicable to this page). So, finishing the overhaul of The Silver Turk and having a clearly stated reason for a move, I chose to move this page, which was originally created by me with a wrong name and which no one else worked on (save for adding a hidden category once).

I moved it because doing the same without violating the "non-move" policy by creating a new page and moving all the links to it would have been worse (would not have copied the history). While performing the move, I was mindful of the potential problems pointed out in the thread you mentioned: I checked that no links point to the old page using Special:Whatlinkshere and I left a redirect, as per an earlier statement by an admin that it should be kept in this case. However, were it necessary to remove the redirect after the move, I would have done it manually, which is possible even for non-admins.

What I, however, regret doing is moving the content (including the talk page) of Elisabeth of Bavaria page to Sisi manually and manually pointing the redirect in the reverse direction. This was also necessary as "of Bavaria" is never mentioned in DWU. I did it in the way that does not violate the "non-move" policy, but too late have I realised that the history of changes will not be copied this way. For this I apologise. As I said, sometimes, violating a policy is better than not violating it.

Bottomline: I'm not gonna run amok and start moving pages left, right and centre. I do care about the integrity of this Wiki. But sometimes one must do what he must to get things done. Amorkuz ☎  09:19, April 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out another problem with non-admin page moves. I understand and will never do it again under any circumstances. Also thank you for making sure my opinion is heard on J&L&S. Amorkuz ☎  08:19, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

Categories
Apologies, but the category I am restoring was a new categories I had forgotten to create, so I will be adding it back and creating it. RogerAckroydLives ☎  03:22, May 4, 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please tell me why you keep undoing my edits? Clara's page needs to be cleaned up. Everytime I try to start, it's undone by you.