User talk:OttselSpy25/Archive 7

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

2013 and image sizes

On the question of how to handle the stories of 2013, it was decided in Thread:146860 that we would create a page that was more or less imitative of Doctor Who (2013 specials, with primary emphasis given to the four televised stories of that year, secondary mention of non-stories (documentaries + Adventures in Space and Time) that appeared on television, and only passing reference to the other, non-broadcast material of that year, such as The Light at the End.

In other words, the page is still primarily a "season" page in nature, so that the prev/next flow from 7 to 8 is logically bridged by a page that is still mostly about television.

Please get with SmallerOnTheOutside, as he was one of the people chiefly interested in this plan. Don't worry; you won't be "calling him blind". We've talked about this within the last week!

I also have a note from other users about your recent picture uploads. You probably just forgot, but please remember that file sizes are supposed to be less than 100 kb. Several of yours have tripped alarms recently, including the near-1mb File:Dream a Little Dream for Me DWY93.jpg. Please be kind to our mobile users and guests on slower internet connections around the world!

Thanks for all your hard work around here!
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  11:54: Tue 25 Aug 2015

Companions

Done, buddy. I'd never heard of those two, it was an interesting read. Thanks! --Revan\Talk 12:21, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Hello

You know I'm never going to catch up to you in the Game of Rassilon if you keep editting like crazy. :) Seriously, though, thanks for all the work you've done on the site. Hope you have a nice rest of the weekend. Bonjour, mon frere.  :) ----Ebyabe (talk) 23:53, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention, really like your scarf. But I bet mine's longer than yours.  ;) ----Ebyabe (talk) 23:56, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Preludes

I'm not going to do Prelude Parasite because I think the character might be someone special, but I can't figure exactly. See Talk:Prelude Parasite (short story) as to my reasoning. Cheers! :) ----Ebyabe (talk) 03:34, September 7, 2015 (UTC)

Titan backup comics

Thanks for the heads up. Due to some computer issues, I've been off the wiki for a bit, but I'm back now and I've put in my two cents. P&P talk contribs 16:36, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

Your DWM sandbox

Hey! I was going through and checking some of the redlinks. Discovered a few could use disambiguation. I did so, but was reminded it's not good to edit other's sandboxes. I reset back the way it was. Apologies if it messed anything up. Anyway, cheers, and new Who this weekend. Woo-who!  :) ----Ebyabe (talk) 02:16, September 19, 2015 (UTC)

Locking pages

Generally, with regards to testing, you'd probably be right that it would be better to work with a sandbox.

But Martha and Eight had peculiar features it was necessary to share with other staff members, in order to make broader improvements in the new portable infobox code (Help:PortableInfoboxes if you've missed the announcements.)

Crucially - and this isn't a particularly well-known point — it's better for testing if you pick pages that are in the main namespace, because our mobile skin works differently there than it does on a subpage of a user page. Since we were actively testing the way the infoboxes were looking on mobile, I made the decision to freeze these two pages, as they both exhibited qualities we were eager to examine as a team. Also, neither character is particularly time-critical, as new stories with them are only being released comparatively slowly.

Still, the tests with Eight are done now, so I'll open him back up. But Martha will need to stay locked for a bit longer.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  18:05: Sat 19 Sep 2015

Oh, you weren't blathering at all, and it certainly wasn't inconsiderate. You were clearly speaking up for the user experience. Keep on doing that, please :)
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:11: Sun 20 Sep 2015

Question for you

Hi! I noticed that in your edit summary for The Magician's Apprentice (TV story) you say: "The profile pic should not be from the preview of the next episode. Which is what that was I'm afraid." Is the picture of Twelve with a gun (that SecondMonster uploaded) from the preview and not the episode itself? Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 18:53, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to burst that bubble. But if you take a look at the very end of The Magician's Apprentice, this picture is actually taken from the this episode. --DCLM ☎ 19:02, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed. Yet the bit at the end is still meant to tease the next episode. A bit of "Ooh, look at this? What's happening here? Find out next week!" Not trying to give away spoilers, but if you watch the trailer it's clear the next episode is going to explain the clip and have scenes set before it. Thus it's basically a clip from the next episode put at the end of this episode as a tease. Thus, by definition, it is not an accurate representation of the episode. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 19:18, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

Anything from the broadcast episode is a part of the released episode, even if it is at the very last seconds of the released episode. Therefore it is not wrong to use that image in the infobox. And technically all cliffhangers are teasers for the next episode, but anything from the given released episode is available for use. --DCLM ☎ 19:39, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

However, OttselSpy25 is absolutely correct that this image is not representative of the current episode. Therefore it will not be used as an infobox image for The Magician's Apprentice (TV story). Shambala108 ☎ 19:41, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to patronize you, I'm just stating that it is not wrong to have this image, even if the same scene is to appear in the next episode. I do agree that this image isn't representative though... I'm just saying that it's not wrong to have it. I didn't intend to patronize. --DCLM ☎ 19:50, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it wasn't main infobox worthy is all I was saying. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 19:52, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

Re: The Master list of appearances

Done. (Forgot about that one.) Let me know if it doesn't work. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 22:31, September 22, 2015 (UTC)

The Master

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I had to archive the talk page for The Master, because it was getting very long and I'm sure it will be getting longer during the current series. However, I did add your discussion on the OOU templates to the current page on the talk page, since it's a new discussion and I didn't want it hidden on the archived page. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 00:26, September 28, 2015 (UTC)

Images

Hi OS25, I know, that you are not the only person, but I wanted to know why my images are keep getting deleted. Is there some policy wich I dont have read? I've licensed it, I've added category's and it was the right size! Please let my know if I overlooked something.

--Mentuhotep I ☎ 12:59, September 28, 2015 (UTC)

Re: companion templates

Hi! I'll get onto it later tonight, unless I forget (which happens way too often), so if you don't see changes in the next couple of days, just yell. Shambala108 ☎ 20:27, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, done, took less time than I anticipated. Do me a favor and check to see if I got them all where and how you wanted. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 22:55, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, on the second try:

• I'm going by the lead paragraph for A Rose by Any Other Name (comic story), which uses the word "stories", so put them in multiple stories.
• I updated the templates for Six and Seven, and thanks for providing the coding. Sometimes that nested stuff gives me a headache. You should probably check it to make sure I did it right.
• ARC was just an error on my part. I specifically checked his page and saw multiple stories, and somehow managed to place him in single story anyway.

Shambala108 ☎ 23:41, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

Masters

Hello, you. I thought it was clear via the art context that Roberts took place during the movie, as he is wearing Bruce's clothes instead of keeping his hood on, In fact, unlike the others, he removes his robes completely to showcase his clothing. Thus, it came across as the artist confirming a placement; that it had to happen when the Master was alone and wearing Bruce's jacket and shades.

As for the Side conundrum, it's mentioned that the Side captured all the Masters, hence why I added the information to every incarnation. Hope that cleared that all up.BananaClownMan ☎ 22:56, October 2, 2015 (UTC)

The Arts in Space - Quark/Ice Warrior

I wrote much of the article. Sure, they "appear" - as a drawing in like 2 panels. Which surely doesn't constitute it as an "Ice Warrior comic story", does it? Notsimonpegg ☎ 16:16, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

Recent image

I would just say, before you say anything that when I clicked that picture you added, it led to an "error" and the infobox was blank. So apologies for saying it didn't exist. --DCLM ☎ 01:03, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for trimming out the done characters at Tardis:List of unwritten BBC Eighth Doctor Adventures characters. I try to remember, but when I get on an article creation roll, it sometimes slips the mind. Only about 360 to go on that list, then I can get going on Tardis:List of unwritten BBC Past Doctor Adventures characters. Cheers!  :) ----Ebyabe (talk) 20:25, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

It's fun turning redlinks to blue. :) I vaguely recall something about not using the character stub tag, but I can't remember where. I know I was doing it when I started. I'll go back to doing that. If it's not something we're doing anymore, I'm sure someone will tell me. Cheers! :) ----Ebyabe (talk) 20:38, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

Redundant Categories

Please refrain from adding redundant categories, such as "Doctor Who directors" for people who are "Doctor Who assistant directors". Redundant categories create what's called recursion and that confuses bots.MystExplorer ☎ 15:18, October 28, 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know the directors category was part of the Game of Rassilon because the game's template is NOT on the category page.MystExplorer ☎ 20:13, October 28, 2015 (UTC)

LEGO Dimensions closure

This discussion was opened in July. By any reasonable measure it was given more than sufficient time to breathe and find something that made it materially different from previous discussions. When it became clear, largely by your own contributions to the discussion, that there were elements of the gameplay that could be done differently by different people, it was then rational to assert that this game was materially similar to any other "choose your adventure" format. As you know from other conversations which you've attended, such formats have long been outlawed.

In other words, my closure of the discussion was in strict compliance with T:POINT, which specifically says:

Don't waste other editors' time by opening up discussions that are materially the same as other, concluded discussions. You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic.

Dimensions offers nothing new under the sun, in my view. Like most other video games, Sally can play it differently to Jimmy. It doesn't matter how fractional that difference is. It would be impossible to administer this ban on "choose your own adventure"-ness explicitly expressed by T:VS if we had to define a degree of choice. No, if two people can play it differently, to any degree, then it's disallowed, because the copyright holders to Doctor Who give us no way to know which is the "proper" version of events.

It is not evidence of meanness or elitism or even lack of understanding of game mechanics that this decision has been made.

In the first place, there's a perfectly good wiki covering Dimensions already. So no one is foreclosing your opportunity to share your knowledge of the game on Wikia, and in a way that would be in easy reach of this wiki.

And in the second, I'm just trying to make sure that long-standing discussions do get a resolution. We have to make progress with these discussions or else there's no point in having them.

Though I've disappointed you this time, I hope you can see it's not personal. Indeed, I believe that I've ruled in your favor in a different discussion earlier this year. If in this instance I've done differently than you would have liked, I hope you'll be able to see that it is a good faith decision based on trying to uphold existing rules.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  02:19: Tue 10 Nov 2015

I'm afraid that I do rather mind if you recycle arguments from this now-closed forum. I see nothing new in anything there. That's, in fact, what closing the article in the negative inherently means. So starting yet another forum about our treatment of video games, based upon the discussion that has now been properly closed by an admin, would be a direct violation of T:POINT.

Basically, you would have to come up with clear evidence that BBC had an official, detailed narrative version of the game. If no such new evidence can be brought to the table, a new discussion is not merited.

I get that you don't like our policies regarding video games. You've expressed that on several occasions over the years. But, as I have said to you in diverse messages, nobody — not even me — gets our way 100% of the time on a wiki. You think it's dumb we don't cover video games better; I think it's ridiculous that we italicise BBC Wales episode titles. Sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce the way you want it to.

Yanno, I'm obviously just a user of other wikis, so I understand things from your side. There are things about various other wikis that drive me bonkers. But there are also things here that drive me, as an admin, crazy. I have to enforce rules that I don't agree with, or that I had no part in deciding, or that I really just don't want to reiterate for the thousandth time. So trust me when I say that the following is just a bit of advice from my experience on both sides of the fence:

When a discussion gets closed against your wishes, you can maybe push back once or twice. But that's about it. It's way better to just accept things and move on to a different part of the wiki, rather than plotting a different way to beat the same old drum.

Truth is, it's a flat waste of your talents to continue being a champion for these marginal products. You know how to use the Wikia platform well and you've got a good knowledge of Doctor Who. We really need you here. But it would be best for you, me, everyone if you edited about the tens of thousands of stories that aren't anywhere close to NOTDWU territory.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  05:19: Tue 10 Nov 2015

Re: Bernice again

Hey, I've made a post at Talk:Bernice Summerfield so we can get some kind of decision, if you want to stop by and cast a final vote. Thanks! Shambala108 ☎ 16:24, November 10, 2015 (UTC)

Block

You were warned in February 2013 that "your next attack on T:VS — however sleight, however sly, however indirect — or on those admin who are just trying to uphold it — will be met with a lengthy block that will at least partially include some of the time that Doctor Who is in season."

In my view, you have done precisely this in Thread:185980 by bringing up a well-understood aspect of T:VS — namely that advertisements are outside our scope. This was as true in a thread I once adjudicated as it is now. That thread, in fact, was open for nearly a year, and in it consensus was reached that advertisements are all considered non-narrative, and hence not valid sources on this wiki. And your stance in this latest thread shows that you were not even trying to get to any sort of new truth. You were at once proposing that maybe Sprout Boy should be allowed and then showing that you fully understood the problems inherent in doing so. You were arguing just to argue, while bringing no new arguments to the table, and therefore running afoul of T:POINT as well.

You've also done it at Thread:178134 by immediately proposing the re-creation of a category that had just been deleted following that thread's natural conclusion.

Also within the last few weeks was a violation of T:ATTACKS at Thread:183627. You have been blocked before for T:DISCUSS and T:ATTACKS here and here, respectively. At Thread:183627, you insulted both CzechOut and the participants in the prior discussion, which you referred to as a "not-discussion". You are bound by current policy, and previous discussions are no less valid, for you or anyone else, simply for you not having been there.

You can't simply opt out of rules you feel do not apply. We have told you the rules and linked you to the policies, we have given you chances, and yet you have repeatedly violated the same rules. You continue to undermine community decisions and policies with frivolous new debates, on things which policy already dictates are not valid.

It is clear to me that not much has changed since 2013, despite ample warning. So, I'm blocking you. Because your previous ban by user:Shambala108, which was set to last 6 months, clearly did not have enough of an impact, this block will be for a period of one year, starting today.

I hope that when you return in 12 months' time, with a few weeks before the Christmas special, you will understand our policies — T:POINT, T:DISCUSS and T:ATTACKS in particular — a bit better, and learn, this time around, to follow them.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 18:51, December 5, 2015 (UTC)