User talk:OttselSpy25

Your Request
I'm afraid I can't help you, as I presently don't a scanner to scan the pictures with. I might suggest searching for pics online.The Nth Doctor ☎  03:25, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Totem
Hello. The short story Totem is clearly getting out of hand. I see you live in Versailles. Perhaps your understandings of English adjectives may be a bit fuzzy? "Grey-blue" is not "blue". They are two totally separate descriptions. "Plain" means rather everyday, and certainly not the shirts that Eight wore.

Next, even apart from these

a)no date is ever given, or even hinted at

b)Two place names are listed as being nearby...Machico and Funchal. Both are in Portugal(and near to each other). Yet, you want to say that the story takes place in both Spain and Mexico.

c)The article states that the Doctor "talks to his former self in his mind".i)there is nothing which says the other man is "his former self" ii)The Senora hears the other man, and at one stage hears both voices at the same time. Clearly it's not him "talking to himself in his mind". Master of Spiders ☎  16:13, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my talk page
I NEVER made fun of your ethnicity. I'm pretty sure you realize this. I merely stated that perhaps, as English is not your first language, you may be unaware of some of the nuances of the English language. That is in no way "making fun of your ethnicity". Your English is still infinitely better than my French. Master of Spiders ☎  17:22, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

The 50th
Please remember that there is nothing to indicate that the 50th anniversary special will be part of series 7. Please refrain from adding it to the series 7 page until we have clear and concise proof that it is included as part of the series.

It is mostly like to be included by itself, thus it will have its own page - a bit like the TV movie. However, we will have to wait and see. MM/ Want to talk? 00:09, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to matter with this person. Once he gets an idea in his head, it becomes fact, whether there is anything to verify it or not. 14:21, February 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * No. You wouldn't put information regarding a potential fifth series of Torchwood on the series 4 page, so why would we do it with the 50th? It's is an awkward one I'll admit - since we don't know the format of the special.


 * It is still best to wait until we find out more - only a mere drip on information has been announced - so wait until something is concert about the format, production coding etc, until we decide on anything.


 * The information on Doctor Who is all we need right now. MM/ Want to talk? 14:55, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Proper use of update tag
Please remember that is only for indicating that a topic is missing major gobs of material. The Chameleon Factor doesn't qualify as a major omission at TARDIS console room. It was a one-off, temporary aberration, caused by the loss of the signet ring in the console. DWM never revisited that TARDIS interior, and every indication in the comic was that it was going to right itself as the effects of the signet ring wore off. 21:02: Tue 12 Feb 2013

"No personal attacks" report
You filed a formal personal attack complaint against Master of Spiders, hereinafter MOS. After several days' deliberations, I find the following: It is my belief that, given the above, you are at least partially to blame for the bad behaviour you believe MOS exhibited. If you kick a dog and the dog bites you, is the dog guilty of attacking you — or did it merely act in self-defence? 06:56: Wed 13 Feb 2013
 * Your complaint was based on misunderstanding. I find no malice, only poor word choice, in his query of your English language skills.  A common-sense reading of "Versailles" is indeed France, not Kentucky.  I do think MOS could have found a better turn of phrase to explore your possible ESL status, but there is no necessary insult in reading your profile and coming to the conclusion that your grasp of English might be shaky.  You might consider making it clearer in your profile that you are American, so as to immunise yourself from this sort of misunderstanding in future.
 * He did violate NPA with his most recent edit to this page. He has been warned against future personal attacks.
 * Leaving messages on his talk page that you were going to run to me and report him wasn't your most brilliant move. Unless it was your intent to emulate a child telling on their sibling. It's probably a better idea to try to find some way to communicate with the other party than to say that you're going to tell on them for breaking a local rule.
 * The huge ASCII face palm that you emplaced at Talk:Totem (short story) is completely inappropriate, incendiary and a waste of vertical space.
 * You are far, far too aggressive throughout the page Talk:Totem (short story). Stick as much as possible to the facts of the debate, not to showing signs of indignation or exasperation.
 * Avoid the use of ALL CAPS, which are usually taken as a sign of aggression.
 * Saying that you're not going to read what someone has taken the time to write is rude. People work hard over their contributions to this wiki, even on talk pages.  Please refrain from saying that you're "not even gonna read" something.
 * You have utterly failed to welcome a new user with different views to your own. At every turn you've utterly dismissed his views. Now, fine, that's no violation of policy.  But, if I can be constructively critical for a moment, you're not exactly our Ambassador of Good Will at the moment, are you?  If you cannot be nice, then at least confine yourself to arguments that take the other person's views seriously and give them policy reasons why their views are hard for us to include on our content pages.
 * Please explain your recent comments at Talk:Totem to me, in light of my above guidance. Is there some reason I shouldn't read your statements as aggressive? Is there some kind of justification you'd like to offer for the use of angry ALL CAPS?


 * You're no longer a newbie around here. New users like Master of Spiders will be looking to old hands like you as exemplars of our community.  And you haven't represented the best of this community at all in this discussion.


 * I'm not saying that you should be like me. I'm talky and not a model for everyone.  But look at how Shambala and Revan stick to the facts.  They aren't shouty and aggressive.  They point to facts and don't at all worry about their personal reputation or whether they're getting through to the other party.  They just say what they have to say, as clearly as they can say it, and then they move on.  Learn from them, please.  02:10: Fri 15 Feb 2013

No Tenth Planet animation yet please
T:OFF REL applies to animation from reconstruction of The Tenth Planet. Please don't re-add until DVD is actually released. Thanks. :) 02:17: Sun 17 Feb 2013

Death?
What exactly do you mean when you say that "regeneration is death"? The Doctor doesn't die--he changes. -- Bold  Clone  01:39, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you're saying; are you claiming that each Doctor dies, and then is resurrected? If so, that's clearly not the case. Resusitated? Maybe. However, the whole point of regeneration is that it avoids death; a Time Lord (usually) regenerates when he/she has been mortally injured, and so regenerates to put off death. The Doctor changes his body, but he's still the Doctor, he just has a new body and personality, that's all. -- Bold  Clone  02:03, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's just it; Seven didn't die; he was mortally injured. He would have regenerated immediately, except for the pain-killers. -- Bold  Clone  03:47, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but no. No, no, no. Regeneration is about stopping death, not coming back from it. The Tenth Doctor himself admitted this: "Even if I change, it feels like dying. Everything I am dies. Some new man goes sauntering away...and I'm dead." --The End of Time In this regeneration story, he's talking to Wilf about regeneration and confesses that even though it's not actually death, it feels like it. His individual personality and body are replaced with a new one, but he's still the same man. The Doctor wasn't concerning about dying; he was concerned about his tenth incarnation ending, to be replaced with the eleventh. -- Bold  Clone  04:11, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Ten is giving his opinion there; even though the Doctor knows he's not actually dying, he feels like his individual incarnation (Ten) will die. So it comes down to how you look at the matter; the Doctor may not really die in-between incarnations, but the individual incarnation "dies" in a sense. Will the casual fan looking at the wiki know that? Probably not; that's why I changed it to "regenerate" in the first place; the last thing the wiki needs is to confuse new fans, especially with Series 7.5 on its way. The reader needs to know that all the incarnations of the Doctor really are the Doctor, and I think that having "death" instead of "regeneration" will only confuse them. This way, with "regeneration" as the title, we can establish continuity between the incarnations and help make the connection that they are different forms of the same person. Make sense? -- Bold  Clone  04:57, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the pages for the different Doctors currently have a section called "Regeneration" at the top of the biography; usually it's "post-regeneration". With "post-regeneration" at the top and "regeneration" (or maybe "next regeneration"?) at the bottom, I don't think that we'd get fans confused. I suppose the we could re-title the "Final Death" section "Actual Regeneration"? Would that work? -- Bold  Clone  05:25, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Death is not more accurate; it's not like Ten is a distinct being from Nine and Eleven. He is simply another form of the same being. At no point does the individual being called the Doctor actually die--certain aspects of him change, but he is still the same. (I apologize here if I sound like a broken record--broken record--broken record. :D ) Again, the Doctor does not DIE in-between incarnations; Ten himself specifically confirms it. The Doctor does not die, but changes. However, he confesses that sometimes, it feels like he is dying. Everything that makes the tenth incarnation Ten is washed away, replaced with Eleven. To confirm, the Doctor does not actually die in regeneration; in fact, regeneration is exactly to opposite of death. If one wants to say that the individual incarnation of the Doctor "dies" in regeneration, then fine, he "dies." But saying that is only going to confuse fans who come here, and I don't want that to happen. What's more, I doubt Czech would like that either. The wiki exists as a fanbase for old and new, but to attract new fans, we want to be as easy-to-understand as possible, and especially with something as important as regeneration. -- Bold  Clone  20:53, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * (BTW, if we can't really reach an agreement over this, what to you want to do? Do you think a forum might be a good idea, so we can get a wider consensus? Something to break the stalemate?) -- Bold  Clone  20:57, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you want to just shift over to the forums now, or do some more debating first? :D I'm fine either way. -- Bold  Clone  19:22, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. :) -- Bold  Clone  19:38, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey; I've got the discussion up here, if you want to continue there. -- Bold  Clone  03:45, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

TARDIS image
Thanks for fixing my mistake. I should've looked at Logopolis's page before posting it. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 22:22, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * Uploaded new image. This time it's definitely the right TARDIS. :) Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 22:30, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * What in the world's more telling about the Hartnell pic than any other pic we could have? I don't quite see what you mean. Cult Of Skaro Here.|Communicate here. 23:20, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

The Dark Path
Hi there. I'm just writing to clarify the revertion of your edit to the Master's page. The events of the Dark Path depict the events that lead to the Master beginning his vendetta against the Doctor, therefore The Nameless City must go after it. About your rationale for the move of the paragraph; the Dark Path does not tie directly into the Third Doctor's era, as the Master's exit from the events of that story does not lead him directly into Terror of the Autons or any other story where he is faced with the Third Doctor. I hope this brief explanation clears things up. --Revan\Talk 11:01, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Ah that's interesting, I thought that Housewarming and The Duke of Dominoes were the only Decalog stories with the Master in. Looking up the plotline however, I have heard of what happends before, and it does seem that there's a gap between The Dark Path and the Master being put in Shada, so you're right there.

So I think we should keep The Nameless City after The Dark Path and before any of the Third Doctor stuff, as they tend to meet in the right order (excluding Legacy of the Daleks). --Revan\Talk 08:41, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Hunters
Please do not relink at Hunters of the Burning Stone. We do not know, based upon one single panel, what the heck is going on here. Remember, DW is science fiction/fantasy. Clones, doppelgängers, holograms, robots and other things abound. Just because someone comes up to you and says, "I'm Za" does not mean that they are the Za from An Unearthly Child. Accordingly, they should not be linked to the AUC Za, because the link is, in effect, a statement that they are the same.
 * the names of characters that appear to be from AUC, or
 * "Tribe of Gum"

Before this mess with Hunters came along, the article at Tribe of Gum was flagged as having an incorrect title. It should never have gotten that title in the first place.

Until this panel in Hunters there never was an in-universe thing called "Tribe of Gum". That is the first time in all of DWU fiction that the words "Tribe of Gum" have appeared in narrative. Put another way, the tribe in the story was not called the "Tribe of Gum". The phrase The Tribe of Gum was simply and exclusively a working title for AUC, and one that was abandoned on about 16 October 1963, in preference for 100,000 BC. At this point, the usage in Hunters is a meta-fictional reference — it is not continuity. Could it become a retcon? Sure. But right now, it's not. Right now, it's just a sly reference to October 1963. 20:06: Mon 11 Mar 2013

Forum
It's really important that you make sure all  tags are closed with   at the forums. Otherwise, you can easily shut down an entire thread, as you accidentally did at Thread:124276. Actually, unclosed divs are always a problem and usually distort a page. On the forums, though, they're especially tricky to correct after the fact. 20:36: Mon 11 Mar 2013

Warning
Reversion during a discussion disallowed Your continued reversion of Hunters of the Burning Stone — whilst a major discussion about that page was underway — is against the spirit of T:NO WARS. It especially wasn't cool since I spent much of yesterday trying to figure out how to reopen the discussion after your editing error. Since I believe you were editing in good faith, I won't block you. But T:NO WARS does compel me to lock the article to force discussion. 05:31: Wed 13 Mar 2013

Monobook
Our code is completely open and viewable to all. See MediaWiki:Monobook.css. 18:05: Mon 25 Mar 2013

Explain yourself
Please explain why you removed this comment from a talk page discussion, thereby flagrantly violating T:DVAN. 17:05: Sun 31 Mar 2013
 * Nah. The comment above is speculative, too.  The IP user gave a legitimate response to the original question.  Maybe the IP made a mistake by putting it in a separate section, so that you took it as a random comment, but it's clearly in answer to the question above it.  Please note that T:DVAN does not allow you to remove comments that appear to be inappropriate to a talk page.  It specifically requires you to get an admin if you find a comment you feel is off base. Please do not delete any comments from a user page, talk page, forum page or, well, anywhere.  Thanks :)  17:42: Sun 31 Mar 2013

Block
You've just earned a three month block for your behaviour at Thread:121062. You've been warned elsewhere on this page not to use ALL CAPS for emphasis, and to generally moderate your tone. Your latest post in the Clara thread shows that you have not heeded that warning. I really can't let you go on having these little outbursts, especially not when other users are flatly saying in the discussion that they've been insulted. T:DISCUSS says very clearly "be nice" in discussions, and you really weren't nice, were you? That's only a rhetorical question, because two different users in that thread said you weren't nice. 14:47: Mon 01 Apr 2013

Ian, Barbara and a hijacked thread
I've removed today's conversation on the Tribe of Gum thread. I apologise for responding there in the first place, as T:FORUM clearly states that threads shouldn't be thrown off topic, as your initial question certainly did. That thread was about establishing the identity of the "Tribe of Gum" and really had nothing to do with Ian and Barbara's status as companions.

I understand your concerns, but I will not be allowing a change to at this time.

As you know, one of fandom's oldest debates is the question of who counts as a "companion" and who doesn't. And the reason that debate rages is that the show offers no answer. Even the mainstream British press is confused on the issue, as the companion article makes clear. The only consensus this wiki has ever come to is that there is no definition of companion. The practical result — since we have to protect companion templates to prevent inevitable edit wars — is that admin decide how to apply the term on a case-by-case basis.

Sure, that's a bit unsatisfactory, and in this case you don't like my rationale. But in a number of cases I think you'd agree that we've made the right call.

At the end of the day, however, it's important to remember that it's really just a navigation template. It's not a statement of wiki policy, or a definitive list. It's just a thing at the bottom of the page meant to help people get from one page to another. Since Ian Chesterton, Barbara Wright and the Eleventh Doctor all appear in the body of each other's text, it would be a redundant link anyway. Therefore, I feel we can afford to make a decision which protects us from having to add a lot of frivolous links to characters who appeared in only one comic story.

I know you think this is some Big Damned Deal that Ian and Barbara showed up in an Eleventh Doctor story, but I urge you to actually look at the structure of the story and compare it with any one of 50 other stories where the Doctor is travelling alone — as he really is in this story. They're all the same basic structure: Doctor arrives, meets people in danger, temporarily befriends and protects them, then sails away in the TARDIS after the successful conclusion of the storyline. I'd submit that the only reason you care about the guest stars in this case is that they are Ian Chesterton and Barbara Wright. Imagine the story with Inez Frampton and Henry Stitcher. Would they be companions to you then? Somehow, I doubt it.

At any rate, this is a very minor issue that has taken up far too much of our times today. Please let's just leave it at that. 01:06: Fri 26 Jul 2013

Block
After serious thought, I have reluctantly decided to block you for your violation of Tardis:No personal attacks at thread:138812. In isolation, the violation could be overlooked, but you have a lengthy past history of warnings for violating the policy, and you have recently experienced a three-month block for violating the policy. You should know better by this time.

I'm not interested in "teaching you a lesson". But I can't let your behavior set an example for other users. You can't call someone a name just because they disagree with you.

Because your last block of three months failed to make an impression, this block will be for six months. Shambala108 ☎  23:09, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

Be more careful when writing articles
When you again edit with us, please take more care in writing articles. Your article about the supposed "Two Doctors TARDIS" was based on an incomplete understanding of the source material. Please read Talk:TARDIS (The Two Doctors) for more information. Looks like you may have tried to write that article based on someone's summary of the work, rather than actually grabbing the relevant portions of the text itself. Couldn't be clearer that, while the Type 97 was indeed put into the shape of a police box for significant portions of the book, the Second Doctor returns to his old Type 40 before heading off to visit Dastari. There's therefore no such thing as "Tardis (The Two Doctors)". While there is cause for TARDIS (World Game), it is only used in World Game. 03:53: Sun 08 Sep 2013
 * Ah, my fazy recollections of the book. I'll be sure to be more careful in February when I'm allowed back on the site. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 06:25, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Etiquette
Please do not squash other user's attempts to contribute to the wiki, as you did here. Thunderush was following T:GTI by going for a colour, DVD-based image of your earlier work. In replacing that image with exactly the same one, what you did was silently say, "I want to be the one to contribute this image!" It just looks childish and petty. Thunderush made a necessary contribution and you decided that it was more important that you be the one whose name was on the contribute list. Now, sure, there's a minor rationale for taking your action. This way, all versions of the file are on the same page. But you've forced him to lose an edit in the process, which can be discouraging to the newer editor.

Because Christmas hasn't quite worn off, I'm choosing to believe that you were trying to make a technically correct edit — even though that meant that you made one that was socially questionable. But please understand that there's no rule of the wiki that says that every iteration of a file must be on the same file page. I strongly urge you to develop other people's interest in submitting good images. If someone revises one of your images, but does it with a different file, just let it stand — and recommend your image for deletion as the duplicate — unless doing so would violate another rule. (For instance, if Thunderush had named the file oidfjoafcvopijojad.jpg, then, sure, we should definitely keep your version.)

You should probably explain to Thunderush what you did — and why — so that he or she understands it wasn't anything personal. Also, when you undo someone's work, it really is important to explain why in the edit summary, except in cases of petty vandalism. 17:35: Sat 28 Dec 2013