User talk:OttselSpy25

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: 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. 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. 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 and we'll be adding more suggestions, like those at Template talk:Doctors. 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 further instead. Better to stick to main incarnations only (1-12), or at least shorten the current list more. 02:19, March 18, 2017 (UTC)