User talk:OttselSpy25

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. 21:03: Mon 09 Apr 2012

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
 * 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. 18:40: Thu 12 Apr 2012

Spot the problem
Please enumerate the problems apparent at The French Revolution. 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 :) 02:36: Sun 15 Apr 2012

Vandals
I don't see a genuine pattern of vandalism with either of these two users. 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!  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. 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.  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. 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.  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, ,  and .  If you add | only=story name then it'll put up a label of   (in the singular) and list the story name beside it.  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.) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 PROSE illustrations, I really didn't see any reason why they couldn't have been cropped widescreen. Try again please. 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. 18:27: Wed 09 May 2012

it's because i don't want to create a doctor who fanon picture to bring it here thats why i need real pictures here and high quality pictures as well...i make my own rule: "no fanon pictures allowed" --User:JarodMighty 18:36, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Focus, again
By the way, what happened to the goal of getting complete visual records of television stories and their characters? More characters from TV, less illustrations from DWM, please. 18:33: Wed 09 May 2012

Sometimes pages can't bear the number of images you want to give them
Please consider page flow when you add pictures. I know that one of your priorities is to show obscure sources, but sometimes there just isn't room for that. The goal of including a diverse array of sources, laudable though it is, is secondary to basic page layout theory.

There isn't enough text at Edward Travers to support three pics, and it's simply more important to show his changed appearance in his two main, fully licensed appearances. Your BBV pic on the page at right serves only to confuse the page, since it is not really near the text which talks about that appearance, but more because it introduces unnecessary white space.

Put into strict policy terms, your addition of pics cannot force the page to violate T:SPACING. Many pages can only bear one pic. A few can bear two. Comparatively few can actually take three pics, and Edward Travers is not one of them.

If you have added pics on other pages that have had this same effect, please remove them. 17:36: Thu 10 May 2012

ok i'll do it i will do what you said... but where is it? --User:JarodMighty 20:30, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Comic story image categories
I think I've finished all the comic story image categories, but I may have missed some. If you run into stories that don't have an image category, please let me know so I can fix the problem.

Also, please note that new stories will require new categories to be created, and for to be placed on them. 02:33: Tue 10 Jul 2012

Delgado Master is 13th
Legacy of the Daleks is the basis for the assertion that the Delgado Master is the 13th. It's not the way by which you can disprove he's the 13th. The anon on talk:The Master (UNIT years) simply has things wrong. He's quoting from a part of the book where the Doctor is musing about something he didn't witness. The book, however, actually depicts the moment at which the transformation happens — it shows us that Susan is the cause of the "decrepit" Master — and the word "regeneration" isn't used to describe it at all. He's mutilated, not regenerated. Beevers/Pratt are Delgado. It's not a different incarnation at all — and that's the very point of Legacy of the Daleks. 21:48: Sun 15 Jul 2012

The Master on lock-down
The Master is locked for a bit while the final deliberations are being held at Forum:The Master - 1 article. In the long run, it'll be easier to do all the moving if we settle the redirect issue first. Please edit other pages while these final details are settled. Please also do not edit the various other Master pages during this time. Thanks :) 21:42: Mon 16 Jul 2012

Timelines go boom
A thread has been up all week, and activity seemed to have died a few days ago. It was overwhelmingly in support of the idea of deleting the timeline. Actually, the latest discussion — Forum:Timeline sections on pages – wasn't really all that necessary to get rid of these sections. Their content, since it overwhelmingly derives from the DW Reference Guide, a) doesn't come from a valid source and b) was ordered deleted from the main namespace when we decided to start brand new timeline pages in the forums. I know you have done a lot of work on some of these sections, like at Destiny of the Doctors, but 99% of these timeline sections are pure speculation based on the DWRG. 02:03: Sat 01 Sep 2012

Please don't use Related Videos module
Please don't upload videos until further notice, per T:RVID. Thanks. 00:25: Mon 03 Sep 2012

Teaser vs. prequel
As a general rule, the BBC in the Moffat era use the word "teaser" to mean "a clip from an upcoming show", while "prequel" means "a bit you won't find in the show itself, which occurs narratively prior to the events of the episode". The images you uploaded most recently were from a thing called a "teaser". Thus, despite your little ALL-CAPS MESSAGE TO ADMINS (please don't do this in future, btw), you did indeed violate T:SPOIL. The images were therefore deleted. They may not be re-uploaded prior to 2010 UTC 8 September 2012.

I'd advise you to just leave all new eps alone until they've been aired. There is no rush to get illustrations from them up on the site. 14:35: Thu 06 Sep 2012

TARDIS image
I'm wondering why you undid my thumbnail image for The Doctor's TARDIS. Was something wrong with the background or lighting? -- Tybort (talk page) 18:30, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

NOT SFW
I'm not sure how to improve, or make more simple, the NOT SFW policy. There are no restrictions on images drawn from valid sources. 14:41: Thu 13 Sep 2012

Badge bug
You guys are both too slow. Please see Forum:Game of Rassilon errors. 04:21: Sun 16 Sep 2012

Be judicious with minor sources please
You're goin' crazy again with minor sources. You've got half a dozen pictures from that 2008 Zygon home video at Zygon which is ridiculous. You're visually skewing the page in the direction of that one story. Dial it back, please. Thanks. 00:46: Mon 17 Sep 2012

jpg not JPG
For the sake of my sanity, please try to use non-capitalised letters for file formats. So, pic.jpg, not pic.JPG. It makes it easier for bot programming if there's a standard spelling for extensions. It's not a huge thing — I can program around it — but there's really no need to program around it. 05:06: Fri 21 Sep 2012

Babelcolour
When you ask an admin permission to do something that they've blocked you do have to wait for them to give you an answer. There was a mere 14 hour gap between your request for protection removal and you starting an article.

Before you re-create this article, I need a screenshot actually showing that he was credited on Genesis of the Daleks. If he wasn't credited, then I'll need a citation from a valid source, remembering that doctorwhonews.net isn't actually a valid source. I need a primary source. However, please don't present a citation from a secondary source without checking the end credits first.

Otherwise, T:OFF REL would apply, meaning you have to wait until Zygons or some future project gives him a credit. 16:44: Sat 22 Sep 2012
 * Dunno what you're talking about regarding protection removal, anyway, because there are no records in the logs of it being protected or having protection removed. 17:24: Sat 22 Sep 2012
 * Cool. You may create an article at Stuart Humpreyes, or however he spells his name, which cites his involvement with The Dalek Tapes.  You may not mention possible future credits, per T:OFF REL. You may not create a redirect at Babelcolour, unless you can get some citable proof that the two are one in the same.  (A link to any page under the control of Babelcolour in which the user says, "My name is Stuart Humphreyes," is acceptable.) "Doctor Who fans" is not an acceptable category, as that category is being destroyed.  You must create a category for the his credited job title, and put it under Category:Doctor Who documentary crew. Thanks :)  18:23: Sat 22 Sep 2012
 * Yep that's fine. Ideal, even.  18:53: Sat 22 Sep 2012

Well sorry! Gosh, Im new here and u dont have to get all huffy about it! Where am i supposed to add pics at then? Or do u prefer that i dont add any?

Thanks,

User:NancyDrew4ever

Well sorry! Gosh, Im new here and u dont have to get all huffy about it! Where am i supposed to add pics at then? Or do u prefer that i dont add any?

User:NancyDrew4ever

Could I add a new page and call it like "Gallery: The End of Time " or something like that? Then I could add all of the pics without putting them on the page :D

User:NancyDrew4ever

Theme / Background
Just to make it clear, Tybort hasn't changed the background, only admins have that ability to do that. CzechOut changed the background, just prior to the most recent wiki update. --Tangerineduel / talk 05:33, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Achievement oddness
In the past day, I've prodded Wikia to remember that they promised a fix to the Achievement icon issue over two months ago. They may have finally started work on it. I think this could be the precursor to them actually fixing the problem of "black-backgrounded icons", since it seems to be affecting local editing tracks. I'm gonna have to gather more information before I can post an announcement of any kind. 02:14: Fri 02 Nov 2012

I'm not going to be entertaining requests to change pics. We've talked around and around this issue. Everyone has their idea about which pic is "best", but we've never used rotating pictures before. The animated nature of things requires a wide variety of different poses to make the animation visually interesting. So I need to just set it and forget it. For what it's worth, though, File:AinleyMaster.jpg is not a part of the current collage, so I'm guessing you're not complaining about the current state of the template. 01:21: Wed 14 Nov 2012

Master
As explained at Forum:The Master - 1 article, I'm in the process of finalising the move from The Master/Rewrite. The article will remain locked until that process is finished. You've had more than ample time to finalise your changes to the article. It's gonna take me more than, yanno, an hour to get everything all set up.

Word of advance warning though: do not change the section head titles once the article is reopened. The section heads must remain the same for the new templates like  to work. 22:25: Fri 16 Nov 2012

Dapol
I consider it better to have pictures of the packaging than artistic, enhanced ones that are made as art, not as a display. What's wrong with a large gallery? Cult Of Skaro ☎  00:21, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

How about I make one large image of the packaging ones combined? Cult Of Skaro ☎  00:21, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I guess, though I actually see uniformity as a good thing. The images should show what the thing looks like when you buy it, not be unique necessarily.

Pics on character pages
Heya :) I've just removed a whole bunch of your pics at Eighth Doctor (and the Master, as it happens) for more or less the same reason. Please remember that pics on character pages must clearly illustrate the topic of the page at thumbnail level.  As explained at T:GTI, we want dominant pics that the average reader doesn't have to enlarge to make out.  Also, please don't use images from a cover unless there's really nothing else that will do.  I can quite see how you'd need to go for a cover to illustrate Eight's new haircut and costume, for example, but not much else.  This is the most-drawn Doctor in Doctor Who history. We can find more than enough unambiguously in-narrative images of him to adequately illustrate this article.  16:31: Wed 21 Nov 2012

Shortcut for term "disambiguation"
Hey, you probably haven't noticed it, but there's a clever little three-letter shortcut you can use for the word disambiguation. Try using dab instead. It's been the long-accepted shortcut for the term at Wikipedia, so it's well understood by a lot of people from various wikis. We also have dab term, and a number of templates, like and  include it as well. Your use of dismag might confuse people, since there's no a between the m and g in disambiguation. 00:24: Wed 05 Dec 2012

Cyberman
Please note that Khaosworks' edit was completely reasonable. I know that you were recently involved in defending this article from anon deletion of chunks of it — and I thank you for it — but Khaosworks is no vandal, nor someone who would proceed without good cause. He's one of the leaders of, and he's not going to make frivolous edits. We need his presence and years of expertise here. Before just completely reverting him, please discuss his changes on the talk page. That you should of everyone is one of the central tenets of wiki editing — but it's particularly true of a Wikipedian of Khasworks' long standing. 02:18: Fri 07 Dec 2012
 * What's to discuss? His change clearly helped the article. And if you knew who he was, then your move was nonsensical. The last thing in the world we need to be doing is pissing off the guy who has tremendous influence on the DW community at Wikipedia.  We want people from Wikipedia to edit here as well.  We should view ourselves as a complementary service to Wikipedia, because we offer an editorial freedom not available over there.  We don't want to gain a reputation with Wikipedia as a place that will instantly revert sensible edits for no good cause.  I'm not saying that Khaosworks' text is sacrosanct.  Obviously it can be changed like anyone else's writing.  But near-immediate and total reversion is just not acceptable.  You can't just remove what you cannot prove to be untrue.  You can change the wording, but the basic point has to stand until and unless you can prove it to be untrue.   06:38: Fri 07 Dec 2012

After Cheetahs
Please read the above-the-picture paragraph of. This sidebar is about the major purveyors of non-televised fiction. BBC Interactive, or whoever published Destiny, is not such an entity. I know you love that game, but please step back a moment and see what the purpose of the sidebar is. It's about showing how there were three major approaches to the Master in the wilderness years, and how these three fed into the TV movie. Destiny is not one of the major approaches, and it gets coverage in the article proper. With sidebars, the goal is to keep things as simple as possible. Destiny is a bit of a distraction, so I've removed it from the sidebar. 04:58: Tue 11 Dec 2012

Inuse
Never ever edit a page with the tag on it - unless you place it yourself. It is incredibly annoying when I go to save my edit to find someone has edited the page since. You should wait till the tag is removed. Do not remove the tag if you did not place it. If the tag is still there after 72, ask the User who placed it if it can be removed and you can edit the page.

The tag was in place so I could quickly tidy up the page without any interference, which took longer than expected. Please do not do this again. Thanks. MM/ Want to talk? 00:51, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Vastra Investigates
I just realised that, cheers. I changed it. MM/ Want to talk? 01:17, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Vandals
Thanks very much for the heads up on this and previous IP vandalism. If you could do me a favour, though, could you link to IP addys by use of User talk rather than just User? IP accounts don't actually have pages in the User namespace. A User talk link is therefore the most direct link that can be made to an IP editor. 19:35: Tue 18 Dec 2012

Your jaw-dropping impatience
Please count the number of responses you have received from me in the last 48 hours and consider whether any other admin, anywhere on the entire Wikia network, would have so indulged you. Importantly, ponder whether those people actually paid by Wikia would have responded so often to you as I have.

Colour me understandably disappointed that you have chosen your current path of petulance. To point out on my talk page that you have "been waiting half a day" for a response from me on a talk page takes balls, my friend. You have absolutely no expectation to the kind of prompt, detailed and thoughtful responses I traditionally accord you. For you to act as if it's completely reasonable to expect a response in a matter of hours is dumbfounding.

I will certainly answer your latest question at Talk:P.S. (webcast) in due course — but you really need to take a step back and breathe if you're leaving messages like that on my talk page. In the context of the volume of text your messages have required me to write lately, it's so very clearly inappropriate to you to be, even gently, pushing me to answer you. 05:30: Thu 20 Dec 2012

Totally category
Is Category:Totally Doctor Who TV stories really the best name for that category? It's a non-fiction show, i.e. not stories at all. Category:Totally Doctor Who episodes would make more sense, in my opinion.

Non DWU stories and categories
Please note than stories bearing, i.e stories that are not apart of the DWU universe cannot be added to any in universe category, such as Category:Fourth Doctor stories, Category:Stories set entirely in the TARDIS or Category:Stories set at Christmas.

The only categories they pages should have are OOU ones, such as Category:Non-DWU stories, Category:Stories released in 2005 or Category:Doctor Who mini-episodes etc. Thanks. MM/ Want to talk? 03:00, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Ban
You asked me a question on my talk page about how to proceed with Totally Doctor Who episodes — and then you just went ahead and started anyway. The TDW issue is actually a tricky one requiring thought and the designing of a preloadable format to ensure consistency of page creation.

You've done this sort of thing in the past, so I feel it's necessary to now emphasise what bad form this is. Seventy-two hour ban for you. When you come back there will be a TDW strategy in place. 14:32: Mon 24 Dec 2012
 * You may continue to edit your talk page during this time, and I may leave questions or comments here relating to the TDW project, to which you should respond. 14:35: Mon 24 Dec 2012
 * Aaaaand there it is. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 19:21, December 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have the heart to continue your ban through Christmas, given how much good you generally do on the wiki. But please give me 48 hours to come up with a way forward on the Totally Doctor Who episodes before you continue them.  Thanks :)   05:14: Tue 25 Dec 2012

Totally Doctor Who
Again, please give me a little bit of time to work up an infobox for this, because I don't think is gonna cut it. TDW is a weird little show with some peculiarities we'll want to highlight in the infobox.

Also, I'll be creating a preload for you, because the documentary one you've been using really isn't fully appropriate.

So if you will please, just hold off until I give you the all-clear.

In the meantime, note that T:NO TITLE, which is really just a logical extension of T:MAGS will apply here, and I've already renamed the four article pages you prematurely created. Also the category is category:TDW episodes — again, mirroring what goes on with magazine issues and several ranges of product.

I'm quite concerned about the quality of your images so far. What's going on with your source material? If that's the highest quality copy you have, please don't bother uploading. I'll gather up some images from my collection. The one from TDW 4 is shockingly fuzzy for something from 2006. 06:51: Tue 25 Dec 2012

Talk: P.S.
There's so much going on in your 19 December post at Talk:P.S. (webcast), that we can't really talk about all of it there without derailing that discussion hopelessly. So I wanted to pull some of the discussion here.

You made the assertion:
 * "Forum:Are deleted scenes canon? I've never even looked at that page before!"

The assumption behind that statement seems to be that you needed to look at that page for it to be binding upon you. And that's not true. You're bound by policy as it currently exists. The rule obviously can't be that you needed to have read it. Or that you didn't understand what was going on because a discussion thread title was misleading. If we allowed that kind of objection, people would routinely say that they simply hadn't read the rule and therefore weren't bound by it. To use the familiar, real world expression: "Ignorance of the law is not a defence."

Remember that in the current forum system, thread titles are meaningless, really. They can be changed by anyone, at any time, with ease. And the true thread title is a number which can't even be searched for in the search function. If you thought Forum:Are deleted scenes canon? was unfair, how does the completely unsearchable Thread:117767 grab ya?

All we can realistically do as interested editors is to try to keep up the best we can. If we miss a discussion we just have to accept that we've missed it. It's my hope that, despite the shortcomings of the new forum system, its ability to highlight threads will improve our overall communication as a community. But this hope for future improvement does not invalidate pre-existing discussions.

It's really important to remember that just because you weren't involved doesn't mean that the policy is, as you so disagreeably like to say, "stupid".

Additionally, you can't always expect that a thread is going to contain only information which is suggested by the title. It's reasonable enough that a thread called Are deleted scenes canon? will have been the thread that contained the discussion about the TV version of Shada — because the ruling is that Shada is a deleted scene.

Remember, you have definitely been party — as have we all — to changing the nature of a discussion such that it is no longer fully represented by the thread title. Obviously, I think that the title needs to be close in meaning, but it doesn't need to follow a particular format. Though I have recently tried to be as clear as possible with inclusion debate titles, the thread which invalidates Shada doesn't need to be "Inclusion debate: Shada".

It also can't be a rule that a thread must be highlighted to be a binding policy-changing discussion. Highlighting only works up to a point; if everyone highlighted every thread then highlighting would be meaningless. (Plus, there's a technical limit on the number of threads that can be highlighted at one time.)

After spending hours wading through our debates, I can assure you just have to live with a certain amount of titular inexactitude. You also just have to live with the fact that some policy discussions are well-attended and some are not. One of the hardest things about being an admin is judging the point at which discussions should be closed. It is important that you give us the benefit of the doubt on these decisions.

Those who write policy are making a conscientious effort to capture the essence of what was said in various discussions. Both I and Tangerineduel make every effort to adequately describe whatever consensus emerged — or, where there is no actual discussion, to follow logically on from similar discussions. It's entirely possible that you may not always agree with our phraseology. It would, however, be helpful if you would moderate the tone of your disapproval. Instead of calling the policies of this wiki "stupid" or even "f*ing stupid", instead of offering LONG PASSAGES OF ALL CAPS, why not try something a bit calmer and a lot more specific? 02:57: Thu 27 Dec 2012

Shada
When you say you have never gone somewhere, and in fact you have, then you have lied, not, as you suggested, "exaggerated". It's very difficult to have a serious discussion with someone who flatly lies.

What seems to be the truth is that you knew of the rule, and yet you have disregarded it. This is disallowed under T:BOUND. It's also contrary to T:POINT. If you have been editing in such a way that blatantly disregards a rule, simply because you disagree with it, that's actually disruptive editing and will get you blocked.

I also note that your first edit on this wiki, at least under this name, is 30 May 2011. Forum:Are deleted scenes canon? was begun on 20 July 2008, concluded on 23 January 2009 and was archived on 27 Auguest 2010. In other words, it was done and dusted long before you came around. Therefore these tears you're shedding over the inappropriateness of the thread title are indeed those of a crocodile. The issue really isn't that the title was obscure. The issue is that you weren't here, and you're unhappy with the rule that was made in your absence. I have every faith that you would have joined in the discussion had you been here at the time, as you would have seen it pop up in the current discussions list and jumped onbaord.

Indeed, it was not, as you wrongly allege, a "tricky" title. The topic was about deleted scenes and it naturally flowed on to Shada, which was then ruled a deleted scene. Any search for the word "Shada" focussed on the forum namespace reveals this thread as the fifth-highest hit. It's another one of your "exaggerations" to even suggest that the thread was as obscure as "Forum:You know, I really do enjoy the Colbert Report". It was a plainly-titled, easily-searchable thread. And that's all you could really have expected out of the old school forum threads.

As for the other thread, the "real" discussion is that which is started by the original poster, Josiah Rowe. As he made clear when he wandered back in after you had hijacked the thread, he wasn't at all concerned with whether the VHS version of Shada was valid. The meat of the matter was trying to find a hierarchy of sources so that we could figure out relatively mundane things like spelling. You changed the tack of the conversation about two weeks after the original questions had been asked and answered. Yet you were rebuffed by Imamadmad, and there was really no need to bolster her already-sound counter-argument.

I know it can be hard to see, especially when you really, truly believe that you have won an argument, but there are times when it's really just you doing most of the talking. There was certainly no consensus for change. There was a whole lot of you repeating yourself, and the odd bit of surliness from Bob. Quite clearly, though, the thread was not even about the thing you were trying to turn it into. And — trust me — you and Bob do not a consensus make.

The basic deal on trying to change a policy is this: In order for an existing policy to be changed, you've really got to
 * demonstrate a clear argument that a lot of people agree with; ties or near-ties generally, but not always, mean that existing policy is upheld.
 * have an argument that is underpinned by some sort of technical truth; that is, an argument like: "we've got to do it, because of the realities of the software"

Nothing like that happened at the latter Shada thread.

I've spent a lot of time this holiday season answering your questions thoughtfully, which is more than you would have gotten on most Wikia wiki sites. Indeed, you've said as much before, when you recently praised us for being a well-administered wiki. I need for you to now believe your own words. I need for you to believe that the earlier conversations were closed and incorporated into policy as reasonably as we could.

In short, I need for you to stop all these little attacks on policies that have long been decided. Speaking personally, I'm a volunteer. I don't get paid to edit here. And I just don't have the time or the will to think about Shada every day. I want to be creating new articles. I want to help you with your Totally Doctor Who project. And I want to give this place a facelift, so it goes into 2013 looking great.

So, please, understand this:

'''We've made a decision as a community. It's as good and reasonable as any other decision we could have made about Shada. Please just abide by it.'''

There are thousands of articles out there that need your help. Please go attend to them, instead of being so focussed on the twenty or so that we don't consider valid. Doctor Who really is much bigger, and much better, than Dimensions in Time and Tom Baker's poorly-narrated version of Shada. 23:43: Thu 27 Dec 2012