User talk:OttselSpy25/Archive 8

	This page is an archive. Please do not make any edits here. Edit the active conversation only.

	Archives:

Prisoners of Time

Hey, as one of the editors who contributed the most for the Prisoners of Time page, I believe your input at this thread: [1] would be very useful. Thanks OncomingStorm12th ☎ 23:42, September 4, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks :)

Hey man :) Thanks for your kind words. All of us on the admin team are desperately trying to work through the avalanche of new forum threads, and I had a little pocket of after-work time when I could help out.

On the subject of the Shalka thread, I am a material participant to the discussion, having already made several posts there. Consequently, I am wary of closing it. However, if eventually all active admin also participate, I may have to revisit this stance.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:09: Thu 26 Jan 2017

Sleeze Brothers

Hey, OS25. I'm a little confused as to your purpose in opening up a side conversation with me, as you gave a Kudos to my closing argument at the Sleeze Brothers thread.

In any case, as you pointed out in a different thread, I'm kinda busy, so I'd much appreciate it if you'd please accept this as the final word on the subject. We've been absolutely inundated with the reopening of old inclusion matters, and it's putting a genuine strain on the whole administrative staff. So, please: don't, on the one hand, argue for quicker closure -- as you've done in at least one thread -- and, on the other, say this was too quick. Neither speed is offered in "bad faith", but is rather "what we have time to do, when we have the time to do it". All of us on the admin staff are volunteers -- even me!

It is relatively easy to see that there is no financial inducement to the creators of Sleaze to maintain any connection to the DWU. Even Marvel UK didn't avail themselves of an opportunity to make that connection, despite running both DWM and the Epic imprint at the time. They could have easily said, "ripped from the pages of Doctor Who Magazine". But they didn't -- likely because they didn't want to give the BBC any possible line of legal attack.

Indeed, this was the very reason behind what they did with Death's Head. They published a one-sheet called "High Noon" in several of their publications before putting Death's Head in The Transformers, specifically because they didn't want the owners of Transformers to claim the character. The lack of specific connection to the previous DW appearance of the Sleeze Brothers is clearly reminiscent of the earlier case -- even more so when you understand that Marvel UK, in their final years, were completely interested in finding their own properties.

Moreover, Fandom gives adequate coverage to the brothers, both in the now-linked Marvel Database article, and at w:c:britishcomics:Sleeze Brothers.

For the average reader of our wiki, there's just no reason to push some kind of connection between the DWU and these cats.

Some of our users here at Tardis have been trying for a month or two to make some kind of rule that "if a character is in a DWU property, then prior or subsequent appearances are also in the DWU".

But there is no such rule in T:VS. And, in fact, there's precedence to suggest otherwise, as with Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Jar Jar Binks, and a whole host of others. Moreover, the other intellectual properties you mentioned aren't strictly relevant to this case, because the best analogue for this case is found within Marvel UK comics.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  15:56: Wed 01 Feb 2017 15:56, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

LEGO Batman

I don't have much of anything to contribute to that particular topic, and I plan to stay in retirement from the inclusion debate scene, but I've really enjoyed seeing how eloquently and specifically you've defended your points. Kudos! NateBumber ☎ 14:12, February 26, 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if my earlier use of a certain phrase was offending to anyone; I've edited it out of the above message. NateBumber ☎ 15:41, February 27, 2017 (UTC)

thanks for Rassilon

I tried to revert it when my Safari decided to die on me. Amorkuz ☎ 20:44, March 7, 2017 (UTC)

personal attack

Hi! Please note that your edit summary at Cyberman (Mondas), "Who in their right mind would include a detail that stupid in an opening paragraph?", falls under the definition of a personal attack. Please review Tardis:No personal attacks and Tardis:Edit summary. Thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 00:48, March 17, 2017 (UTC)

Doctor incarnations

Don't worry, I'm definitely not fed up with you. I brought it up with some other admins, and I was getting the sense that maybe all "non-main" Doctors should be removed from the template. Else, so many things could be argued for addition in {{doctors}} and we'll be adding more suggestions, like those at Template talk:Doctors#Future incarnations. In truth, at that point the template ceases to be useful.

I definitely do sympathise with your more aesthetic argument, by the way. From a practical standpoint, though, it might be best to restrict {{doctors}} further instead. (Including the Dream Lord there but not so many better claims to the list makes no sense to me. Meta-crisis has a better case, and if we have any beyond the 13, keeping the Valeyard seems more important than these others.) Better to stick to main incarnations only (1-12), or at least shorten the current list more.
×   SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•]   💬•| {/-//:   02:19, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Without, of course, going against what I said above, the reason I'd put Meta-crisis well above Dream Lord in terms of relevance is not because of some sort of fan consciousness, but rather because Ten actually used up one of his regenerations to make him. Some other "incarnations" are manifestations, or future Doctors, or unnumbered/alternate incarnations, but Meta-crisis is kinda the only one to contribute to the regeneration count thus far, in a way. I know, I know, Ten would have used up his regeneration even if his hand didn't come to life, but it's around the same thing. The Watcher is a strange sort of almost-similar case, where he's important to the transition between "main Doctors". But the Dream Lord? He's a representation of the Doctor in a dream he once had. So what? What's he doing there?
×   SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•]   💬•| {/-//:   04:26, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Death's Head reply

You brought this to me just a few days ago, and you can see I haven't been very active for the last little while. I won't say that I have no interest either way, but I also can't say Death's Head is my own area of expertise, so I won't state an opinion of my own on the matter. Remember that we are not paid for our work here, so service won't always be so speedy. When Czech has the time, he will have a much more complete answer for you. In the meantime, do not make any pages for now; Death's Head has been a subject of contention, so some form of discussion is certainly necessary, even just one between you and our 'expert' admin, CzechOut.

And I do want to emphasize once more that you cannot expect speedy replies, all the time, from our admin team. I have my own life as well, and especially if you're seeing a lack of edits on my part, it's a safe bet that I don't have much time to spend on Tardis at the moment. Notice how there are other users I still haven't got back to, either. Complaining I'm ignoring your messages, I think, is not cool; threatening to go ahead and make the page because I haven't given you an answer within the same work week is getting into T:POINT territory. I'll let you know if I have anything further to add, on the topic of inquiry itself.
×   SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•]   💬•| {/-//:   04:22, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

Destiny of the Doctors

Hello. On a recent edit summary of Destiny of the Doctors (video game), you added that "I think our rules on infobox images are pretty clear about this." (when replacing a in-universe image for the game's cover). Would you be able to point me which? I tried finding it, but could not find any; also, seems weird to me that we'd use covers for video games, when in every other media we go, when possible, with in-universe screenshots/illustrations. (ok, except audio and novels, but we don't really have much to do in this case). The only thing I could find was in Tardis:Guide to images, that said "the longer the infobox is, the further down it pushes the first image in the body of the article. So we do want to try as much as possible to use widescreen pictures for infoboxes". Anyway, if you could point this one out, it'd be very helpfull. Thanks. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 23:38, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Susan

Firstly, we don't have to explain anything. Listing the stories is sufficient, and by that I mean listing all the stories that you mentioned too. Secondly, if the stories were listed as TV: An Unearthly Child et al., I could have agreed with you: it would say here is the character introduced in An Unearthly Child and present in many other stories. Instead, we have a bracket: from An Unearthly Child to TV: The Dalek Invasion of Earth. Excluding all the non-TV stories this way is simply against the policy I quoted, sorry. On top of it, it is misleading the readers, plain and simple about the sources one should check to learn about Susan's life and about our knowledge about it. Why not TV: The Five Doctors? Why not AUDIO: The Beginning? Why not AUDIO: Lungbarrow? We are an encyclopaedia. It's not our business to simplify things to make it more palatable for new viewers: that's Moffat's job. Our job is to provide all the connections. If you've noted, I did not add all the stories with Susan: that would overcomplicate things. But the pivotal stories: when the Doctor returns (all accounts) and when the Doctor sees her for the last time (all accounts) are to be mentioned. Amorkuz ☎ 06:23, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

In principle, I would say it is sufficient to give "first appearance" at al. This is non-controversial, simple, and gives the idea that they were important character with a lot of backstory. I don't know how to determine one "last" with either of them. River has appeared very recently in both comics and audio. On audio, these appearances are after TV: The Husbands of River Song, which itself is, in her personal timeline, before the library, which is before TV: The Name of the Doctor. They are both complex time and space events, so giving the first appearance is completely fine. Amorkuz ☎ 06:31, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello, there, OttselSpy25. It is good to be able to speak to you.

I have a question, regarding recent edits to the Fourth Doctor page; you said you found a Magazine article detailing where the comic strips take place in relation to the television series. I don't suppose you could tell me where to find it, so I can read it and update the Fourth Doctor timeline theory page. Or, if you like, you could update it with the info you found, to ensure I don't muddle your finding. ;)

Also, what is Connections? The link is dead, and I can't find anything on Google about it. Might I ask where you found it so I can find it and add the page?

And finally, though off-topic, how do you archive your talk page? Its something I want to do but can't find out how too.

Thank you for your time, and I hope you have a nice day.

Yours in good faith, BananaClownMan ☎ 09:43, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Stripped for action?, ay? Personally, since its the same source that claims Peri travelled with the Seventh Doctor, I tend to ignore it, but the each his own, I guess. ;)

Also, something I noticed while looking into the Movellan page after The Pilot; it claims that a Movellan appears during the Doctor's vision in Timeslip. Could be an indication that Timeslip takes place after Destiny of the Daleks, as that seems to be the first time the Doctor met them? What's your take on this?BananaClownMan ☎ 10:03, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, good Sir/Madame.BananaClownMan ☎ 10:21, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Master

Well, all the Doctor pages have how they felt about their regenerations, as does the section concerning the Yana Master. I just thought it strange that the other Masters lacked how they felt about regenerating. I would have added them myself, but I don't have access to Doorway to Hell, First Frontier or Fast Asleep yet, and was hoping someone would add them while I try and find a way to get myself a copy of them. Hope that clears things up.BananaClownMan ☎ 13:41, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Well, like it says in the Yana personality section; "Despite being in pain, he welcomed his regeneration in a grandiose fashion, declaring that "the Master [was] reborn." Just a little recap of how the Master approached his regeneration (fear? anger? determination?) and he maybe even how he felt about his demise. (Yana "was a misogynist, considering it an embarrassment to have been killed by a girl".)

In fact, what happened to the first Delgado regeneration pic you uploaded? The one where he's standing and the process is underway and he's saying "death can't stop me"? Would be good to add to the personality section to go with this summery.BananaClownMan ☎ 10:42, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

PNG

OttselSpy25/Archive 8
Main aliases:	Charlotte
Appearances:	see list

...as an inline image

Hey :) I wasn't able to get to your image review as quickly as I would have liked yesterday. I was beavering away on several other things.

Lemme just start by saying the biggest problem I've got with this image is that it's not nearly as sharp as I'd expectg a PNG to be, particularly if you've only compressed it from 113kb to 33kb. While it's not blurry enough to delete, exactly, it does make me wonder whether you actually scanned it originally yourself, and whether you've got the right settings on your scanner.

Because it's not particularly sharp, I don't know that the transparency is actually worth it.

That's because, in most situations, you're dealing with a white background, anyway.

See, in the new infoboxes, the backgrounds are white -- even in the light-on-dark scheme -- so it makes no difference to infobox use whether it's transparent.

For inline images it again makes no difference. The main skin is white, so transparent images will again have an apparent white background.

The only place where it makes a difference, then, is with inline images in the optional light-on-dark scheme. There's no doubt it looks better against that Tardis-blue background. But since there's no guarantee that this Tardis-only feature will always be available, you kinda come back to the same question of whether it makes sense to go the PNG route, given that the image is slightly blurry.

But having said that, you were able to reduce the file size, and it's a drawing, so the PNG format is allowed. Since no rules have been violated, there is no cause to delete it. But somewhere in your process, there's a tiny, tiny flaw that's rendered this image less clear than it could be.

In any case, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to reduce the file size. It's very much appreciated. :)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  20:21: Sun 30 Apr 2017

speedy rename template request

Greetings, just wanted to ask you to put "|user=OttselSpy25" in your {{speedy rename}} requests. Otherwise, your name shows up as gibberish in T:SPEEDY. In the ideal world, it wouldn't matter. But in reality, you might get your request fulfilled sooner if admins know who initiated it. Thanks in advance. Amorkuz ☎ 20:25, April 30, 2017 (UTC)

Placeholder reply

Saw your post. Thanks for alerting me. I'll look into it when I have a longer time slot. (And thanks for your support earlier and encouragement now.) Amorkuz ☎ 09:25, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

So I'm looking at the companions and it'll take me some research. But right off the bat I can say that if Sonny will be included, it will not be by my hand. You know, sometimes, a pipe is just a pipe and Basil is just a joke. At the very least, this would require discussion at Panopticon. Secondly, I'm not sure I understand the place of River in the proposed template: she's in two places simultaneously. But I thank you for bringing this up: the template indeed requires maintenance. I just don't want to replace one mess by another questionable placement just because there are so few people who can edit it. Amorkuz ☎ 18:29, May 2, 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I'm doing: considering. I'd like to understand how a character who only appeared in one story overall becomes a "multi-adventure" companion. And in my experience it is often because of some non-trivial timey-wimeyness. Amorkuz ☎ 19:21, May 2, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I decided to fix the damage without changing the status quo. The question of who is a companion is very subtle and should not be trusted to a person not familiar with the character (me). As for the multi-story/multi-adventure/ single-adventure distinction, my head hurts even thinking about it. Amorkuz ☎ 00:28, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Hugo Lang

OS25 can I use your picture expertise, I recently looked at the Hugo Lang page and noticed that it's pictures is appalling

, therefore I have uploaded a new one

. I am not sure that is complete satisfies the image policy and since you have been updating pictures that violate the policies could you check this for me. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 16:31, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks this did come from my screen shots of the episode. Next time I watch it I'll try and get a better pic, though I think my new image looks better than the old one, mainly because it isn't tinted yellow. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 17:00, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

Please stop uploading narrower versions of files

Please immediately stop uploading narrower versions of magazine covers. I'll explain later, but please stop now. These files are not in danger of being deleted, and you're making the mobile version of the site suffer.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  21:56: Mon 01 May 2017 21:56, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

T:IUP does not say that all files over 100 Kb will be deleted. Only files above 1mb are so threatened. You're therefore massively overreacting to upload new versions of files that are only 200kb or so. Also the min width requirements are soon to be increased to 420px so that infobox pics will be full width on larger phones. Your edits are therefore going in the wrong direction. For the moment, please don't worry about all this image stuff. As I said in chat, use the deletion logs to resurrect deleted files. Please don't think it's necessary to preemptively protect files that are marginally too large by uploading new, lesser versions. Thanks :).
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  22:07: Mon 01 May 2017

Okay, sorry if the above seemed a li'l curt; I was typing it on a phone. :) So I wanted to follow up with an actual comparison of two images as they're seen in infoboxes on actual phones. Below are two new (portable) infoboxes, as seen on a real iPhone 6+. Now, the pictures aren't super great quality; in fact they're third generation images -- JPGs of a PNG of a PNG. So they're grainy. But the point I'm trying to make with them is the way the images fill the available space.

As you'll no doubt know, the 6+ is a wider format phone, pretty close to where a phone starts to become a small tablet. So ideally we want images that will fill a 6+ (or whatever the Android equivalent is).

And you can tell below that while the 301px image at left is the lower end of what we call a "hero image" -- one that triggers the article name overlaid on the image -- it doesn't come all that close to filling the whole width of the phone. Meanwhile, the Darvill pic that's at 420px, fills the space completely.

So that's what's driving the soon-to-be-announced new minimum width of 420px. Will this leave us with a lot of too-thin images in infoboxes? Yes. But luckily we do have Tardis:ListFiles to easily guide us towards our new "prey".
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  23:22: Mon 01 May 2017

The image you keep deleting

T:NOT SFW seems to support the people who want that image to stay. The3rdnimon ☎ 02:48, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

Tuck

Understood. Let's return to it if the story becomes valid. Amorkuz ☎ 18:17, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

Wraith

While we're on the topic, was there someone you had in mind for the rename of Wraith? 'Cos I can't find a conflict and there is no edit message to point me to one. By the way, if dabbed, it would be Wraith (species), unless the conflict is with another species. Amorkuz ☎ 18:24, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

Ah, those beasties. Then I think we should also wait but for a different reason. I have to admit that I'm one issue behind, I am not yet clear on what is real there and what is not. It could be just one Axos-like organism (aka the "red TARDIS") or it could be inhabited by various creatures. And for mirages and illusions we don't need to create pages. (But what about Boris? Was he an illusion too?) None of these creatures had their own say, so to say, so they may still be given authentic names. I will change the speedy rename to a rename and post something notable, as in note to our future selves. Amorkuz ☎ 18:41, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think the price goes down tomorrow. I'll buy the issue then, and we'll talk again. Sorry, I did not think they would reappear in China. Amorkuz ☎ 18:55, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

At any rate, since species are dabbed by "(species)" and these can't, it's not a speedy rename. Amorkuz ☎ 18:55, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the legwork. It's gonna be useful, hopefully very soon. Amorkuz ☎ 19:46, May 9, 2017 (UTC)

No worries. To be clear: I certainly never intended to stop the discussion of the move. In fact, in almost all situations I am for discussing things. You can just assume that by default, unless stated otherwise and backed up by a link to a relevant policy. And thanks for the minimal-spoiler version. I do appreciate that. Amorkuz ☎ 23:02, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

PNG, again

As I said above, .png is perfectly acceptable for drawings. This has always been the case, since the earliest revision of our image use policy in September 2005. In fact, back in the early days it was the preferred format, language that T:ICC still retains, for simplicity. At every point I can think of -- Special:Upload, T:IUP, T:ICC -- it's consistently stated that .jpgs are required for photographs and screenshots. The Dr. First images are neither, and they're not over 100kb, so they're fine. They'd also be fine if they were .jpgs under 100kb.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  16:16: Tue 16 May 2017

Chat question

Sorry, I didn't see your question in main chat until now. I think you're looking for The Orbitus.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  04:30: Thu 25 May 2017

Fair enough, but do you have an in-universe source stating chickens can't fly?--Sumanuil ☎ 02:29, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

I seem to remember some of the ones in the Torchwood Episode Ghost Machine taking flight when spooked. I'm going to watch it again, and if they do, I'm changing it back.--Sumanuil ☎ 02:34, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

At least one goes airborne, straight at the camera. Chickens don't fly very well, but they can.--Sumanuil ☎ 03:41, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

Master as companion

There's a technical issue at work here. Obviously, we want to feature categories about the Doctor's companions on our mobile main page and in the Doctor Who App. It selects images based upon which are the most popular pages within those categories. [[The Master]] is always one of our most popular pages. Because we have a carousel image up on that page, it starts with the Master as a young boy and cycles through to the Gomez Master. But neither the App nor the mobile version of the site can deal with carousel images. So it just takes the first image, which is of the young Master.

This really isn't at all accurate.

Clearly that Master isn't even "the Master" yet, much less a companion of the Doctor. So allowing the Master to remain categorised as a companion is telling a visual untruth to our mobile users. The Master absolutely cannot be in a companion category for that reason.

Of all of the people to represent "companiondom", the Master is simply editorially unacceptable. It's worth more to the site to have categories/nav templates be arguably incorrect than to include the Master.

Surely you can see how unacceptable that is.

Even so, I don't think it is inaccurate to leave him off companions' categories and navboxes. People have all sorts of different facets. It's important to categorise/navigate by only those things that are most true. It might be true that the Fourth Doctor knew a thing or two about cricket, but it's Five (and Seven) who's in Category:Cricketers. Likewise, the Master is not dominantly a companion of the Doctor. I'd even argue he's no more a companion of the War Doctor than the Third Doctor was a cleaning woman or the Second Doctor was a German physician or a gypsy. The Master is faking it.

In any case, it's up to the body of the article to fully discuss the character. Categories and navboxes are just meta tools, designed to give broad overviews. They are not meant to give every twist and turn of the character's biography.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  23:52: Fri 09 Jun 2017

T:NO RW is clear

I understand you want to discuss this. And we could have several days of intensive back-and-forth that would not lead to anything. Since at the moment I have other projects, I can just cite the policy: Trust only Doctor Who sources. Additionally don't go further than what the DWU source actually tells you. You are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the policy. "Did a DWU source tell you that this is a photo of MLK?" is the question that the policy demands you to answer. In principle, I do not understand how editors would be disadvantaged from reading about this photo in the BTS section rather than in an in-universe one. I am especially puzzled by you first arguing that readers should have the right of knowing what happened in a story and then adding a link to a story that provides no such information anywhere on the page. But, as I said, your beef is not with me. You want to change the policy - start a discussion on Panopticon. Until then, you are bound by the current policy as it is formulated.

Your own example of Remembrance of the Daleks perfectly encapsulates how this wiki treats such occasions. Martin Luther King is mentioned only in the "Story notes" and "Ucredited cast" (both RW parts) and at both places his name is not linked because there is no in-universe link to the name. Did you ever think why editors painstakingly added the info about MLK to this story's page but not to his own page? Do you really think it was neglect on their part?

The "we can of course" attitude already led to adding the year of Albert Einstein's invention of his famous formula based solely on his photo forged by the Monks. It will not lead to anything good.

So, as I said, by all means argue against T:NO RW. When you succeed in changing the policy, I will be enforcing the new one. Amorkuz ☎ 14:16, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

I really do not understand how putting things in BTS and "Story notes" qualifies as lying. I explicitly said: for the purposes of disambiguation it is allowed to create a page under the real-world name. How do you derive three different pages for MLK from this, I don't know. Of course, all this information should be on the same page. Think of it as separating evidence acceptable in court vs. not acceptable. There is a lawyer telling the jury: "You cannot make inferences based on this video of a smoking gun because it has come to the court's attention that two police officers shot from the same gun after the accused." The information is still there for all to see, in BTS section of the character page or "Story notes" section of the story page. Unlike the courts, we do not try to hide it or stash it away. In fact, it's out-of-universe until proven in-universe. Anyone can verify it by finding a confirmation in some obscure story. I did it for several factoids. Sometimes the result was not the same as in the real world. Sometimes it was the same. This information is there, just can't be used on in-universe section of pages. I really don't see where the bone of contention lies. Amorkuz ☎ 14:59, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

All your examples work against you: Struwwelpeter never mentions the name of the book in the in-universe part of the page. And "Paperback Writer" is not identified as a song by the Beatles on the in-universe part of the page either. The only reason the song title is in the lead is because "Paperback Writer" is (rather persistent) part of the in-universe lyrics.

In fact, I could get into comparison of various editions of Struwwelpeter in various languages and how it's absolutely unclear from the RW perspective how it could be in English already by the time of the Frost Fair and how it is not clear what would be the title of the book in RW: would it still be in German or would the title also be translated. But it is "wholly irrelevant" as you say. Because it is the real world and it does not matter.

You clearly do not pay attention to what I say, so there is no point continuing this discussion. You have the right to your opinion. And I have an obligation to uphold the policies. Amorkuz ☎ 16:09, June 11, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Categories

Thanks for the clarification. I have always been slightly confused as to placement of things like Category:Daleks on these sorts of pages but it seems that that was a mistake in itself. --Borisashton ☎ 17:39, June 14, 2017 (UTC)

Cyberman rejigger

Hey hey :) Wanted to thank you for taking the lead in trying to make fresh sense out of the Cyberman page in the wake of the season finale.

After consultation with other admin today, I took some unusual steps on your user sandbox page, and I wanted to drop by and explain them. We chose to go ahead and move the page before people started making heavy revisions at both Cyberman and your sandbox. This could have gotten very messy on a page that already had a pretty messy revision history.

In general, it's a best practice to avoid using sandboxes for live pages. By the time you get ready to pull the trigger and move the thing from your sandbox, other users could well have dropped by the live page and made edits that might have complicated the move. It kinda goes against the spirit of wikis to edit in a non-linear way like this and increases the risk of edit conflict -- particularly on high-use pages.

Now, you might well be remembering using this very same sandbox to create a version of The Master, but that situation -- if you can remember back to 2012 -- was controlled because I'd emplaced edit protection on the page.

That wasn't the case here, and the admin staff weren't really going to even consider doing that. The last thing we want to do is to stop people editing about a major part of the finale, within days of the finale. Stopping editing of the Master's page in 2012 wasn't as big a deal, because the Master wasn't terribly current at that time.

Anyway, great work bringing together a team to tackle an important task, but please try to avoid using sandboxes to rewrite live pages in the future. Just dig in at the live page, and allow the normal process of collaboration to occur. Thanks!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  02:53: Sun 09 Jul 2017

T:POINT, again

So, according to Special:Diff/2393348, all I get from you after three hours hard work trying to address your questions is how I'm opposed to discussion? That's unfair. Tardis has one of the best-run Forum/Discussions areas in all of FANDOM.

In your heart of hearts, I think you know that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in my edit of T:CHANGE that describes some new policy.

As I've explained, the minor edit to T:CHANGE merely makes an allowance for something that's been around for years in T:BOUND. As Shambala and Amorkuz both pointed out, it didn't represent any sort of change from the way we've actually been doing things for years.

I didn't stop the thread when it started, even though I saw it initially pop up. People expressed themselves, but there comes a point, sometimes quite early, when it's obvious truly new opinions are not forthcoming, and when you know that the central premise of the original post is just wrong.

What was happening to the thread was a descent into something else -- namely, dissatisfaction with the way a few inclusion debate threads were closed. This thread can't be used in that way, because, as you should by this time well know, it would be a violation of T:POINT.

Look, you were blocked for most of last year for the same kind of thing. Why do you wanna keep doing this? Why do you lurch from being really happy that I'm closing threads to attacking the very way that threads are closed? Why are you cool with the admin staff when they rule in your favor, but then attack the whole way we do things when you've had some forum closures not go your way?

It has been the truth here for over a decade and is completely standard FANDOM-wide that admin have the right and duty to close forum threads. That's because someone in the community has to. You recognise this because you've told me several times that you think it's good I've gotten in there and closed a lot of threads this year. A situation where I made a closing statement, but then allowed for followup discussion, would be untenable. We'd never get through these things. And are you really telling me that I now have to make a closing statement on a thread that's been dead since 2013, but wait for you and other users to give me the go-ahead to really close it? C'mon, you know that's not reasonable.

I implore you to please play by the rules consistently -- not just when the ruling happens to be in your favor. The truth is, most forum threads don't interest you at all. You've not balked at me closing hundreds of them, because they had nothing to do with you. But from an administrative perspective, things can't work like that. Neither I nor any of the admin staff can close threads differently just because they happen to involve OS25.

I realise that you sometimes have a lot to say on various subjects. And you wanna be given the opportunity, always, to respond. But this isn't a social messaging client. It's a wiki. Administratively, we need to hear various positions, do some independent research when necessary, close the thread and move on to the next one. Thread closure is technically and administratively important -- now in 2017 more than ever. So, yeah, you aren't going to get the opportunity to express every thought you have about every thread.

And that's why I have to regard your edit to your own post to be an obvious violation of T:POINT. And -- once again, as I've been saying for years -- your use of all caps is unacceptable. We had to build an Abuse Filter just because of you and your tendency to shout in discussions areas. Again I say: please calm down when things don't go your way.

And while you're at it, please tell me why I shouldn't block you for T:POINT violations for this little stunt. I mean, I have to believe that because SOTO blocked you for that last year, you knew better, right? Lemme know why I shouldn't.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  02:23: Sat 15 Jul 2017

Doctor comics template

Oh, amusing how a thing is left untouched for a long time, and then two people decide to edit it at the same time :) I see that you also had the idea to transform the coding present on First Doctor comic stories, et al into a template. However, we went through different paths: you kept the coding already present, but I took {{Doctors nav}} as the base for mine ({{Doctors comics nav}}). They are almost one and the same, and serve the same purpose, so I came here to see with you what do you like best. I prefer mine, but only because it takes less space on the top row, allowing the text to begin on the first line. What do you think? OncomingStorm12th ☎ 19:40, July 25, 2017 (UTC)

Header image

Hey :) Thanks for contributing to T:HI. One little thing I notice though, is that while it's monochromatic, it doesn't appear to be truly black-and-white. Any chance you could give that a li'l fix and resubmit? Thanks :)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  19:35: Fri 04 Aug 2017

Block

I'm really sorry I have to do this. You are a good editor who does a lot for the wiki. I can understand your pride in your work. And I hate to have to block you.

But there is, sadly, no benign interpretation of your "ultimatum". Because ultimatum is just a fancy word for a threat. Here is a dictionary definition: "a final threat: a promise that force or punishment will be used if someone does not do what is wanted". You did not specify the target of your threat or its nature. But this does not matter. Nobody will be issuing threats on the wiki because of a difference of opinions. Not on my watch. You've been blocked before for violating T:DISCUSS, this is not your first rodeo, so there is no need for me to spell it out.

What I would like you to understand though is that our forums are not about winning an argument. CzechOut went to great lengths very recently to point out that you keep demanding that issues of interest to you be treated in a special way, and not the way you otherwise consider completely normal when they do not intrude upon your perceived sphere of influence. I've seen it time and again: you attempt to win every argument and occasionally throw a tantrum if you don't. The reprimand from CzechOut I mentioned was due to your refusal to accept the outcome of the closure of a thread. And now you issue an ultimatum merely because new facts are provided that contradict your position? Your reaction to new information (from DWMSE 45) being uncovered is: "there's no point in even opening a thread on this site because it has almost a 0% of ever being closed". Such disregard for facts is completely unacceptable.

You disregard facts in more than one way here because your statement about threads not being closed is just plain false and, frankly, insulting to hear for those admins who spent a lot of effort to bring down the number of webpages containing all open Panopticon threads from 14 to 8. Worse than that, you knew that this statement was false because several threads started by you personally had been recently closed quite promptly: the most recent of them was initiated by you on 26 July and closed on 4 August with your proposal implemented. That was just a week ago.

As I said, the goal of the forums is not to win the debate no matter the cost. The goal is to find the best possible solution based on the information from all valid sources available. In particular, a temporary consensus reached by ignoring inconvenient sources or dismissing them as irrelevant (as you often do), or simply by not trying to look beyond the facts that support your point of view---is a false consensus. It is for this reason admins routinely double check whether some relevant information was overlooked before closing threads. It is for this reason it is often necessary in the closing statement to bring in facts not present in the discussion.

Not so long ago, several well-respected editors, including yourself, complained against this practice, positing that such new facts should always be allowed community discussion in the thread. You, in particular, accused admins of "closing threads that they disagree with while bringing up a point that hadn't been mentioned in the discussion". But here's what happened in reality: I, an admin, did not close the thread based on these new facts (and yes, I personally considered them to be conclusive). I brought these points into the discussion as requested (and as I myself consider to be appropriate). But instead of a community discussion everyone supposedly longed for, the result was your ultimatum that the thread should be closed the way you want. (This, by the way, is a perfect illustration of the behavioural trait pointed out to you by CzechOut: demanding to immediately close threads that go your way but insisting that the discussion continues for threads that don't.)

In a nutshell, only your desire to win is responsible both for cutting this discussion short and for forcing my hand now.

I would be very happy if you changed your internal definition of winning. This is not a zero-sum game. Your win is not my defeat. And your block is not my win. A best decision on a forum should be a win for all involved. And this block is a lose-lose situation, with you losing the ability to edit and the wiki losing a quality editor.

Let me list several practices I would ask you to refrain from in the future:

1. Issuing threats of any sort.
2. Making any determination regarding whether a consensus has been reached and whether it is time to close a thread (as in "we had reached a consensus and people had agreed that it was time to close it months ago"). Please kindly leave this determination to the admins.
3. Ignoring facts.
4. Dismissing facts and arguments of the opposing side as irrelevant (as in "if you think Moffat did a good job making the two fit is totally irrelevant"). It is not your prerogative to decide which facts are relevant and which are not. Please kindly leave this determination to the admins, or at the very least use clear qualifiers such as "IMO".
5. Judging other editors (as in "Who in their right mind would include a detail that stupid in an opening paragraph?") Please always write in a way that allows for the possibility of you being wrong. To err is human.
6. Instructing other editors what they should do or how they should behave (as in "If you want to argue that it's not a story, then make a forum on how every prequel or prelude ever released isn't a story."). They are your equals and can decide for themselves. If they make a mistake, an admin will correct them.

Since blocks are not intended as a punishment but rather as a means to put an end to undesirable behaviour, it is relevant that you have been blocked for a year before for violations of T:DISCUSS and T:POINT. In addition, in the past 6 months you have received two warnings from two different admins for violations of these same rules: from Shambala108 for a personal attack and from CzechOut for protesting a forum closure that you disagreed with. The important point to consider in determining whether a shorter block is warranted is whether non-blocking measures, such as above warnings, have proven effective in stopping policy violations. And here, to be honest, you do not have a good track record:

1. after being warned by Shambala108 for using the phrase "Who in their right mind", you did not respond to her in any way and soon used almost the same phrase again in explaining to SOTO why you are not going to wait for their response;
2. after being warned by CzechOut that you should not try to undermine the normal forum procedures when the outcome is contrary to your desires and being directly asked why you should be spared a block for this violation of T:POINT, you again did not respond to him in any way and soon issued an ultimatum on another thread demanding its immediate closure based on the consensus determined by yourself, all dissenting opinions and facts notwithstanding.

Since warnings failed time and again, it would be foolish now to hope that a symbolic block would not be treated as just another of those warnings.

Nevertheless, the 3-admin panel reviewing your case decided that, in recognition that you have shown improvement after your last year-long ban, the new ban will be shortened to substantial but not punishing length. You receive a block of three months. Amorkuz ☎ 22:34, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

Shortenings

Hi, I did not catch it myself the first time I read your recent post about video games. So I sincerely hope this was just an unwarranted shortening with unforeseen connotations. If I am right and you did not catch it either, I propose to immediately apologise to Shambala108 on her talk page, edit the post to include the full name and never use that abbreviation again. I don't want it to become blown out of proportion. But it cannot stay as is on the forum either. In fact, coming from a less established editor, it would look like a personal attack to me. But I have not known you to stoop to the level of personal attacks to make your point, no matter how forcefully you were making it. Amorkuz ☎ 10:02, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Do you have the right person?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Shambala108 ☎ 15:03, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Re: video games

Well, ok, now you've left me in a difficult position. Your post at Thread:181884, "I don't want to presume poor faith, but the fact that the rejection of the pitch to "temporarily make these games invalid" has lead to a pitch to "permanently make all games invalid" makes me believe that the entire point was to do that in the first place." is a direct personal attack. If you want me to be specific, it violates the point at Tardis:No personal attacks that states "Accusatory comments towards editors that can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." (I bolded the pertinent part.)

Based on your record, and the fact that you posted your attack in the forum (which is probably the most popular place on the wiki, especially with new users), you deserve to be blocked for a very lengthy amount of time. However, my dilemma is this: first, I don't generally block users who attack me (because, frankly, I really don't care what people I don't even know say about me), but your attack is very public; and second, me blocking you, a user who obviously stands on the opposite side of the issue from me, would look like I'm trying to silence your argument by basically getting rid of your ability to post in that thread.

I will try to explain my stance as clearly as possible. Based on various forum decisions and admin comments, I don't see how the majority of video games can be considered valid sources by the rules that have been established by the wiki. Most of the arguments against my stance go along the lines of "it doesn't matter if there are small variations in the narrative". But that goes against everything I've come across in Forum:Panopticon archives, talk pages, user talk pages, and the boards. That's my stance, and your accusation that I only made my first suggestion so that I could make a later suggestion is not an attack that I would not tolerate if you did it to someone else.

Now, given your recent history as noted by User:Amorkuz above, I don't care if you respond to this post or not. I'm mainly posting it here to have on record that I don't want to block you unless I absolutely have to, but I will if you make any other kind of attack at all, against myself or anyone else. Thank you for your time and patience. Shambala108 ☎ 00:18, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

Multiverse

The idea of a DW multiverse was slowly growing on me. Apparently, not me alone. Just wanted to let you know that this is not just an out-of-universe theory anymore. Based on Code Silver, "multiverse" is an in-universe description of the multitude of parallel universes/dimensions. The exact quote from a Cyber-Controller:

We will continue across the Multiverse until all are converted. Every reality will be a Cyber-reality.

Happy editing. Amorkuz ☎ 22:01, May 30, 2018 (UTC)

Forum posts

Hi, this post is just a formality, because of course you've already been told this information before. There are three things you must not do in a forum post:

• Ask for consensus/vote or claim a consensus. That is the admins' job in a forum post. And incidentally, do not speak for others - either people who post in a thread, or the rest of the wiki who don't post in a thread. Don't make assumptions about what other people think about an issue.
• Ask for a thread to be closed. You know this, you've been warned before.
• Post false "facts". Not saying you mean to lie, but you must check your facts before you post them. What you might not realize is that we get a lot of new users who are first attracted to our forums, and they may not know their way around the wiki enough to be able to do any fact-checking. Posts that are blatantly false will be removed, and if they affect the entire thread, that thread will be closed/deleted.

Thanks, Shambala108 ☎ 02:38, September 19, 2018 (UTC)

TIDH

For some reason, my two attempts at posting a closure message failed. So let me mention it here along with a request. That was almost a model discussions in terms of the depth of provided details and careful analysis of all relevant aspects. Based on the decision in the last post, there is some clean up work to do. That involves moving some pages and deleting some pages. I am planning to do that (though not today). But, needless to say, a template markup identifying what to move and what to delete would help. Amorkuz ☎ 01:07, September 23, 2018 (UTC)

Thirteenth Doctor image-ination

Hi, just wanted to let you know that the infobox image for the Thirteenth Doctor is now being discussed at Talk:Thirteenth Doctor. Thought you might be interested. Amorkuz ☎ 11:33, October 11, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Request

Hi there. I'll have a read of the stories in question so I have a better understanding of the thread and take a look. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Revan\Talk 13:21, November 22, 2019 (UTC)

"Now on the Big Screen in Colour!"

I've elaborated on my rationale for having created the page in the first place at Talk:Now on the Big Screen in Colour!, if you'd care to see it. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:10, December 12, 2019 (UTC)

Re:Personal attacks

Me:

• "We do not have a selection of 13 Doctors as the OP asserts". Actually, there are several beyond the 13 (or 14 including the War doctor) that come from valid stories. Here is just a small selection:
  • The Doctor (Battlefield)
  • The Doctor (Alien Bodies)
  • The Doctor (From Eternity)
  • The Doctor (The Tomorrow Windows)
• "This is not the first or second time this particular OP has started a forum post with an incorrect assertion".
  • Thread:231309
  • Thread:219136

You:

• "It's very unprofessional of you"
• "constantly asserting bad faith"

My advice:

• Please make sure when you open a forum thread that you don't misrepresent the wiki's policies. You've been around here long enough to know our rules, and you do know them. Refrain from making blanket generalizations that don't actually fit with reality. Any thread that begins with an incorrect assertion will not be allowed to continue, as it would confuse users who are less familiar with policy.
• You also have a history of complaining when a forum thread doesn't go your way. Please refrain from making personal attacks on the admins just because you don't like our actions.

Shambala108 ☎ 02:22, March 2, 2020 (UTC)

Based on my personal policy to not block users who attack me, I didn't block you, leaving it up to other admins to possibly take that action. Live and learn, that was a stupid decision because so far it hasn't happened. And if you had attacked another user or admin the way you have me, I would have blocked you for a year. Luckily for you, in trying to avoid any future accusations of "abuse of power", I'm only blocking you for three months.

Let me make myself perfectly clear here: any future attack on other users by you will result in a permanent ban by me. No one on this wiki should have to take this kind of crap.

Shambala108 ☎ 02:28, March 4, 2020 (UTC)

I can't just watch this happen without saying something. Shambala108, you didn't provide any links to where this conversation occurred, so I have to go off your summary provided above. But if that is representative of the actual conversation, wiki policy clearly indicates that neither of OttselSpy25's remarks were personal attacks.

• "constantly asserting bad faith": T:FAITH applies to all users, including admins – something the policy itself makes quite clear with lines like "Show them that you are assuming good faith about their intentions, whether they are new or regular editors." As you know, while T:FAITH describes how we should act, T:NPA describes how we shouldn't, and it specifies specifically that OttselSpy25's suggestion that you committed a personal attack in no way violates the policy.

  Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user.Tardis:No personal attacks

• "It's very unprofessional of you": Looking beyond the rules of just this wiki, FANDOM itself clearly establishes the right of any community to assess admin behavior: "If you are unhappy with an admin and you feel they should lose their rights, you can propose this on the wiki itself." Likewise, one of the reasons explicitly given for admin rights removal in Help:Group rights is "The rights were abused." Therefore, it is entirely within the rights of a user, and not a violation of T:NPA or any other policy, to suggest that an admin has been acting unprofessionally, which you yourself recognize was an accusation of "abuse of power". And in any case, I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which a description of an action as unprofessional doesn't fall under the same "statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user" clause of the policy as quoted above.

As it stands, and given that you were both prosecutor and judge in this case, I think that any ban at all for this purported violation is unjustified. Hopefully this is just a misunderstanding that can be cleared up. – N8 (☎/👁️) 13:13, March 4, 2020 (UTC)

Oh, now I see the conversation on User talk:Shambala108#Personal attacks. I stand by everything I said above, now doubly so. – N8 (☎/👁️) 13:17, March 4, 2020 (UTC)

Check on

Hello, User:OttselSpy25. I just wanted to stop by and check how you were doing in these trying times of self-isolation?BananaClownMan ☎ 09:55, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Random question

Thank you! And: ah! That's a cropping from the cover of It's Bigger on the Inside!. I felt a grinning cartoon Cyberman got the point across quite well. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 10:45, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello, there. I just wanted to stop by and wish you the merriest of Christmases, and a Happy New Year.BananaClownMan ☎ 14:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)