User talk:Shambala108

	Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17

Shadow Proclamation

Regarding this revision, why is Category:Galactic law redundant for Shadow Proclamation?{{raw:w:papi}} 20:29, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

Possible Lock opertunity

Hi, is there a possibility of putting a lock on Anthony Spargo so that only registered editors can edit it as there has been an anonymous user(s) who keep vandalising the page, and myself and User:OncomingStorm12th keep having to undo the vandalism. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 16:06, July 28, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 21:47, July 28, 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion

Why did you revert my revision? Is there any reason the page needs to use the page name magic word rather than the name of the article itself? Most articles on this wiki don’t use {{PAGENAME}}.{{raw:w:papi}} 16:54, August 6, 2017 (UTC)

Note on Cat:Individual Time Lords

Hey there! I just figured I'd ask you about a change I want to make. On Category:Individual Time Lords, there's a note from 2012 saying

"Individual Time Lords cannot be a subcategory of Category:Individual Gallifreyans, or vice versa. Such arrangement creates bot-stopping recursion. From a purely practical standpoint, the two categories need to be merged for the smooth operation of the wiki."

I'm thinking of removing the note. Besides the bot, there are plenty of other reasons why someone shouldn't put Cat:Individual Gallifreyans in Cat:Individual Time Lords, or vice versa; namely, there are several non-Gallifreyan Time Lords, and there are also several non-Time Lord Gallifreyans, like I.M. Foreman and the Outsiders. This is also a strong argument against merging the two categories, hence why no editor over the last 5 years has followed the note's suggestion. What would you think of me removing the note for this reason, or at least removing the merger suggestion it includes? NateBumber ☎ 22:29, August 7, 2017 (UTC)

Why did you undo my revision?

You undid my revision. Can you please explain why?

You did it a little over a week ago too, and you still haven’t explained why.{{raw:w:papi}} 00:25, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

I left a reply to you on my wall. {{raw:w:papi/nobr}} 00:54, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious user

Thank you for blocking User:Liambowler15. However, I noticed something. Check the logs page. Is it just me, or is it a big supsicious that, extremely soon after he is blocked, User:SecretMan15 is created. If you think I'm being too suspicious, check out User:LiamBowler, another probable sock puppet. I've given up assuming good faith now. This user appears to know the rules about no fan fiction, and is deliberately avoiding blocks. 86.152.200.56^{talk to me} 15:31, August 18, 2017 (UTC)

If the name isn't enough, Liam Bowler's page DOES claim that he is the Doctor, and Liambowler 15 kept adding fake articles about himself as the Doctor. His contributions page appears empty to me. Did he create any (now deleted) articles of a similar style to 15? 86.152.200.56^{talk to me} 15:33, August 18, 2017 (UTC)

Ok, 'SecretMan' at least admitted to being a sock puppet, but did promise to stop the vandalism, and claimed to be 'only 14'. Make of that what you will. I leave it in your hands now. Bye now... 86.152.200.56^{talk to me} 17:18, August 18, 2017 (UTC)

See User talk:SecretMan15, btw. 86.152.200.56^{talk to me} 17:26, August 18, 2017 (UTC)