User talk:OttselSpy25

Missing the point at 2013
You're kinda missing the point I'm trying to make at 2013. I'm not just saying that you have to wait until the date that DWM says something will occur to add that bit of info to the page. I'm saying you have to actually go down to your local shop and see it on the shelves, or at least go to http://amazon.co.uk on 28th January and personally verify that it's for sale. Never blindly trust DWM, for they are occasionally wrong. Always verify what they, or any other news outlet, says. 15:54: Mon 28 Jan 2013

See also sections
Please don't add see also sections. Find a way to work the link into the text — and I mean a natural, logical way — or don't include a link at all. There is no reason that one should "see also" the Doctor's fur coat from brainy specs, for example. 08:44: Fri 01 Feb 2013

Amy's glasses
If you do ever make an article about Amy's glasses, let that be the name. There's no need for her last name or the type of glasses, as it's unlikely we'll ever have another Amy giving glasses or another kind of glasses belonging to an Amy. "Amy's glasses" is fine. 08:50: Fri 01 Feb 2013

Merge tags
Hey. When adding a merge tag to an article only add it to 1 article. For The Question and The "Doctor Who?" running joke you've got it on both. As the template starts it says "It should be relocated at ". This is useful for the discussion to have it on one page rather than on both and if/when the discussion concludes with a decision admins know in which 'direction' to merge the articles. I know you've noted the whys of merging the pages on both templates but ideally the merge template should be used on only one of the pages, further explanation can go on the talk page. Thanks. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:25, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Stop it
Your most recent comments at Thread:121256 were in full violation of T:POINT and have been summarily removed.

You must stop endlessly debating the fates of these extraordinarily minor bits of licensed, but non-continuous, narratives. Stop challenging site policy, which is based on the contributions of dozens of people. Stop trying to find some way — any way — to sneak references to these rule 4 violators into articles. The principle espoused by rule 4 isn't going anywhere. It is so fundamental to this site that any attempt to strip it from the site would have chaotic ramifications. There will always be a handful of stories which have been ruled "licensed, but invalid".

That reality is set in stone, and you are bound to adhere to it, even if you don't like it. As I've said many times, there are things that I don't like around here which I am nevertheless forced to uphold, and there are things that you don't like that you just need to swallow hard and accept. Without continuing to grouse about it.

On a personal note, I need you to stop characterising any of this as my decision. The process for excluding licensed material started before me, and decisions about several stories were already made long before I was an admin. I am not the "big bad wolf" here. I'm just a guy trying to make sense of hundreds of forum discussions, so that people's contributions to those forums won't have been wholly wasted. Note, too, that there are times where I've argued for the invalidity of a particular source, but the source didn't get thrown out. The Infinity Doctors leaps to mind. The system is not geared towards me getting my way while denying yours.

Both Tangerineduel and I have made an extraordinarily good faith effort to hold sometimes lengthy forum discussions, and then to accurately represent the views of those discussions when concluded. We then have to engage with new users to try to explain our policy. But neither of us has the time or energy to debate it every time a single user has a new idea of how to get around it. We especially don't have time to engage in some sort of running battle with a single user like you.

I'm sorry if I've been unable to explain all this to your satisfaction, but that doesn't matter anymore. We're now at the point where you need to just accept the rule. In other words, you now need to choose. Do you want to continue editing here, or do you not? If you do, resist the temptation, however great, to bring up these rule 4 exceptions. 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.

I would absolutely hate to do that, because you make a lot of great contributions around here. But I know that I speak for Tangerineduel and Mini-mitch when I say that we cannot deal with it anymore. Every admin on this site who frequents the forums knows precisely what your views are on this subject. We get it.

But indulging your repetitious, time-wasting objections was a 2012 thing. This is how we're playin' it in 2013:

Keep your problems with previous rule 4 discussions to yourself — or get blocked. 22:08: Wed 06 Feb 2013