User talk:OttselSpy25

	Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8

Mission to the Unknown

We don't. It's the one story we can't at all illustrate in the infobox or the plot sections. The reuse of file:Varga.jpg is fine, because you're showing it as a publicity shot.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">21:03: Mon 09 Apr 2012 

If you encounter pictures you don't think meet our standards — for any reason, but obviously including alleged publicity photos — please tag them with {{delete}} and give a deletion rationale. So, {{delete|This image can't possibly be from the episode, because no telesnaps were made, and none of the footage survives}}. Even if the photo isn't ultimately deleted, it at least will bring it to greater attention and it may get moved.

In the cases you've brought up, I'd remove them from the character infoboxes and probably move them to the actors' pages, unless the actors' pages are already illustrated.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">21:34: Mon 09 Apr 2012 

forgivness

sorry its not that because there's loads of the end of time images that why you forgot to add them otherwise that they won't know what the pictures from the episode it was.

User:JarodMighty 05:32, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

pictures of the symbols of Gallifrey, Time Lords & The Seal of Rassilon & Omega

these pictures from my user page were mine they were for my userpage

--User:JarodMighty 14:55, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

Coop3 and JarodMighty

Hey, I've dropped a message onto JarodMighty's talk page encouraging him to take a look around the wiki and see how it all functions. That's the way I believe a lot of people learn by looking and reading and working out how a wiki works.

I agree with you with regard to Coop3's contributions, they're not brilliant. Some of the edits have been picked up by others and fixed or as you've done undone. I've rolled back the rest as it's mostly speculation. Let me know if you want an admin to leave a warning/friendly note if they start up again with more speculation. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:01, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

Dimensions in Time

Please remove all references to the 20 pictures from Dimensions in Time that you uploaded. Make it your top priority, please. And please heed what's told you on your talk page so that both you and I don't have to keep doing all this unnecessary work.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">02:38: Thu 12 Apr 2012 

There's no legal copy of the thing to be had, so therefore it doesn't matter even if you had the original source videotape to take screenshots from. Effectively, the BBC doesn't retain copyright on the show, since they are unable to redistribute it. It is, in all but name, an unlicensed production. Arguing that it came from Loose Cannon — I bet it didn't, but whatever — doesn't help your case at all. T:ICC rules Loose Cannon an illegitimate source of photos.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">04:14: Thu 12 Apr 2012 

Categories

Please, when creating categories make sure they're consistent in their nomenclature and casing as others in similar categories. You had a mix of upper and lower case on the Unproduced images categories. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:47, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Further to the unproduced TV story image categories, specifically, please stop. We won't be categorising such images, and you shouldn't really be bringing these images into the wiki, anyway. They are illustrations of the article in which they appeared. They aren't concept art for the production in question. They are done way after the fact, without the approval of the production team involved. They illustrate merely an artist's impression of what might have been. To put them into the article muddies the waters to an unacceptable degree.

Again, I urge you to move into the area of finding photography of actual stories that are firmly within the DWU. Please stop wasting your time and my time with these things that are on the very fringe of the DWU. We haven't gotten images for every character in the televised DWU, even. That's what we need much more than these little back alleys of the DWU.

All of your "unproduced" categories have been summarily deleted, and the pictures stripped of those categories.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">17:03: Thu 12 Apr 2012 

Unproduced stories infobox

Your efforts in Category:Unproduced Doctor Who TV stories, though appreciated, are in some ways completely nonsensical. I really must urge you to please use common sense with infoboxes.

• How the hell can an unproduced story from 1985 possibly have an associated episode of Doctor Who Confidential? Confidential didn't start until 2005! This variable doesn't mean "any old documentary". That is why it is labelled "confidential", and linked to Doctor Who Confidential. It could not be a more specific variable. Please, please, please stop using it to do whatever the heck you want.
• Unproduced stories clearly don't have a production order or a broadcast order. They have no order whatsoever because, obviously, they were never made. The only navigation possible on unproduced stories is nav=0.
• Relatedly, unproduced stories do not have a story number, because, again, they were never made.
• Unproduced stories have no public credits. Thus, all personnel in the infobox and in any "crew" section within the body of the article need specific citation. You can't just say Graham Harper was the director of Yellow Fever and How to Cure It without proof.
• Equally, production codes have to be specifically cited for unproduced stories. We do have some examples of unproduced stories that actually got production codes. But it's not every single one of them, and you have to be able to prove the point. You gotta be really careful with The Lost Season, too, as source. It's not necessarily giving real evidence, but extrapolating what the production code might have been.
• Seasons have to be backed up, too. You also can't link to a season that exists. For instance, linkage to season 27 doesn't work, because season 27 is the same thing as series 1 (Doctor Who). So to say that Crime of the Century is part of season 27 is awfully misleading. Actually, for most of these, you might consider whether it makes more sense to have the season variable un-linked so that you can explain better what you mean. You don't mean CotC was a part of season 27. For clarity, you mean it was a part of the "unproduced 1990 season".

To sum up, if you try to use an infobox on something, and the variables just aren't quite fitting, stop what you're doing. Then ask for help. Don't go and do a lot of work that has to be ripped up. And with unproduced stories, you have to give a citation for just about every piece of information in the infobox, since none of it is readily apparent on credits.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">18:40: Thu 12 Apr 2012 

Spot the problem

Please enumerate the problems apparent at The French Revolution.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">19:25: Sat 14 Apr 2012 

Well, I asked you to look at The French Revolution rather than File:The french revolution.jpg. True, all those things you mentioned were wrong with the file itself, but I"m more interested in the fact that you still aren't understanding what I've told to you several times, about pictures and lists. No pictures to the left of lists — remember? Also, this tiny article really can't bear two pictures. Let's try to concentrate a little more on articles that have no illustrations, rather than oversupplying small articles with too many pics. Thanks :)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">02:36: Sun 15 Apr 2012 

Vandals

I don't see a genuine pattern of vandalism with either of these two users.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">03:29: Sun 15 Apr 2012 

The reason I wasn't seeing a pattern was because the user was employing several different IPs. Combining your report with other data, I was able to construct a more obvious pattern and thus implement a block for a whole range of IPs. Thanks for your help!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">17:29: Sun 15 Apr 2012 

Stop moving things

Please stop moving story pages. If you see a problem with story pages, let me know. You don't have the tools to move it properly. amd if I see a page moved to the proper location, I'll think that the page has been moved properly. Thanks.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">15:35: Wed 18 Apr 2012 

Just to clarify, if you see pages that need to be moved, please put a note on my user talk page. The exception to this are pages that either you have just created, or pages you're going to manually change the links to. If it's a relatively unlinked page, you may be able to quickly change the one or two links to it, which will allow you to "properly" move the page.

As for production codes on unproduced stories, you still have to provide citations. Actually, pretty much everything about unproduced stories requires proper citation. So if you see them being removed, you'll know why. I'd appreciate it, though, if you could police your own work, removing every assertion for which you don't have a source.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">15:52: Wed 18 Apr 2012 

Focus, please

Though we agreed you'd be finding pictures from seasons 15-18. Why are you getting pics from Celestial Toymaker, which is already sufficiently illustrated. Please don't post anything you've uploaded from that serial.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">19:09: Sun 22 Apr 2012 

Why does so much of what you do unnecessarily add to my workload? Was there any reason whatsoever that you created a whole new file at Toyroom.jpg rather than just adding a new version to the already existing, and better-named, file:TARDIS hopscotch.jpg. Now I have to take time to delete one of them and revert your edits at TARDIS hopscotch. If you want your image up — and it is, very nominally, of better quality — do it the right way. The way I know you know how to do. If this is about not wanting to wait until the system catches up and displays your picture at the new dimensions, please don't bother with that hoary old protest. Have patience. Do things in the most efficient way possible.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">19:26: Sun 22 Apr 2012 

Sock puppets

Thanks for the heads up, the account has now been blocked. It does not take a genius to see it's a sock puppet account, Finister2, Finisterman etc. Thank again! MM/Want to talk? 19:57, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

river song images

Dear Ottelspy,

I know that you like to use dramatic images, but I like images in which you can actually see the subject's faces. Both the images in that section -- the darklit blue image of whoever it is that plays the Little girl and the picture of the first regeneration -- are just messes that don't look good even on my 30-inch Mac screen. Boblipton ^{talk to me} 00:31, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it on the base page, yeah, it is. However, when it's on the screen in the body of the River Song article, and even when I click on it for an enlargement, it's visually just a dark blue blotch on a black field. As for the regneration picture, it looks like someone got sick from eating citrus fruit peel..... Boblipton ^{talk to me} 00:42, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

First appearance

Please do not add someone's first appearance if they only have one appearance. By adding it, you are just adding repetitive information. The first appearance should only be used if they have more than one appearance. If they just have one, just leave 'first' blank. MM/Want to talk? 18:24, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

This actually reminded me that I'd forgotten to include a variable for the case of the single appearance. I've now added it to {{Infobox Location}}, {{Infobox Individual}}, {{Infobox Object}} and {{Infobox Species}}. If you add

| only=story name

then it'll put up a label of Appearance: (in the singular) and list the story name beside it.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">19:07: Wed 25 Apr 2012 

Serial images

Thanks for getting back on track. However, please be judicious in your illustration. A general rule of thumb, and unless there's a lot of text on the page that can support another approach, is to only put one image per episode. The six you have at Invisible Enemy are overly ambitious at this stage in that article's development. Surely you can see the bunch-up that's happening with just four images. Six makes it just a mess. On a page like Invisible, that barely has a lead, you probably can't get away with a picture for ep1 and ep2. We do want the picture to basically be in the same vicinity of the ep it illustrates. So just upload your pics to Category:The Invisible Enemy TV story images and make the page as is balance out. When the page eventually gets expanded, we can then consult the category for our archive of photos and pick what we need to flesh out the newly-expanded article.

Note, too, that I'm not advocating you change what's already present. For instance, Underworld's episodic pics are fine. The infobox is not really up to snuff, but the body pics are fine. Don't replace pics just to put your personal stamp on an article. The goal here is to add to the database, not just change what we have.

Granted, there are going to be cases where previous editors haven't given us a great pic. Maybe the shot that's there is from VHS and there's now a DVD image available. Maybe, like on Underworld, they've taken a pic where people's backs are to camera. If you're actually improving a technical fault of the pic as outlined at T:ICC, fine.

But please don't just change for change's sake. At this stage in the development of the wiki, the clear priority is to add new stuff. (Obviously, though, admin have a continual duty to clean up images as we find them.)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">18:42: Wed 25 Apr 2012 

Hutchinson

Not sure that there's a better solution. It's in line with Joan Redfern (TV character). Possibly it should be Hutchinson (television), but the basic distinction between the media is the point of difference between the two characters.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">16:50: Wed 02 May 2012 

i found it!!!

you're gonna like it:

http://www.oocities.org/willbswift/index.html

http://www.curufea.com/rassilon/old/index.html

--User:JarodMighty 18:41, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

Nope. I made a ruling on this a while back and it seems CzechOut has become motivated to put the plans into action. You can see the archived discussion at Forum:Timeline pages and the forum he's created for them at Forum:Timey-wimey detector. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:56, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

I can see you're the major contributor to the Master timeline, so I understand why you're protective of it. Unfortunately, it's simply better to have a clean sweep and start afresh. It's impossible to tell whether your initial, original efforts were carried forward by every intermediate editor. Moreover, there were a hell of a lot of code errors in the page, and its name is not in the proper, new format. Better just to burn down the forest and plant again. Request for page restoration: denied.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">16:00: Thu 03 May 2012 

Hiya. Afraid I'm gonna have to block you for a few hours. I can't have you creating while I'm finishing up deleting. Between you and Doug86, this operation is taking hours longer than it needs to be. I'll lift your block when I lift it. Sorry, but I've really got to get this done without worrying about you trying to immediately recreate things. For future use, please do NOT recreate ANY thread that was deleted. The format of names is FORUM:TIMELINE - CHARACTER NAME. That's the only form available. Do not create redirects. And don't create "shells' of pages. Unless you're prepared to actually do the building of the page at the time you create the page, don't create it.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">16:27: Thu 03 May 2012 

Okay, sorry about that. I'm trying to work today on a really old computer and the list of pages I needed to delete went from 16 to 64 overnight, which added a ton of time to the process. I really just needed to get all the links — over 1500! — unlinked and all the pages deleted. There were simply too many permutations of these page names to be trying to decide which one stayed and which one went. I note that although I deleted your First Doctor Page, not much work had been done on it. Recreation poses no great loss of time, since you hadn't actually specified any stories.

For additional guidance on this timeline project, please consult user:Tangerineduel or User:Revanvolatrelundar, who are leading the contentual part of the project.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">20:32: Thu 03 May 2012 

Yep, that should be fine. For page layout follow the Forum:Timeline - Eighth Doctor, or even the Ninth, Tenth or Eleventh Doctor page layouts. --Tangerineduel / talk 13:14, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen

Again deleted a bunch of your pictures for basic non compliance with the 16:9 rule. Looking at many of your pictures of BE illustrations, I really didn't see any reason why they couldn't have been cropped widescreen. Try again please.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">18:00: Mon 07 May 2012 

Images

No. If images are of poor quality or don't meet out policy, they go. Most of the images I deleted were fine, other wise I would have left them. New pictures can be just as bad as old ones, new ones are always better. Never think this. I deleted every single images with '<250px' because they were, meaning they were not "fine". I never said it was the wiki's main priority, it was mine for the past few days. I spend hours deleting images that you had upload that violated the policy. Images need to be deleted if they don't meet the policy. They cannot be used if they don't meet with the policy.

Simply, if I deleted on of your images it because it violated the policy. I never went over the top. MM/Want to talk? 13:00, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Not that anyone asked, nor that MM needs me backin' him up, but I quite agree with MM's above statements. And this is not just a general stance of support for a fellow admin. But I actually took the time to review specific deletions and from my random selection, I think MM was not generallydeleting things that could have been usefully preserved in our new "image library" categories for future use.

That said, I do agree with you on the specific issue of File:Sixth Doctor.jpg. That's a nice strong closeup that has potential. So I did restore that. I am not, however, pleased with the way you uploaded that. Remember that new versions of files must be of the same basic scene. You completely replaced Alex Glover's work. You should have found a different name for your pic. as it's a materially different image.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  <span style="">18:27: Wed 09 May 2012