|
|
| (716 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{ArchCat}} | | {{ArchiveList}} |
| If you need to leave a message here on my talk page, please follow a couple of guidelines:
| | == Something you might want to look into == |
| * Please don't forget to [[Tardis:Signature Policy|sign your posts]]. I won't answer any post that doesn't have a signature.
| |
| * Also, if you are starting a new topic, please add a new heading.
| |
| ----------
| |
|
| |
|
| == Master images ==
| | Hello, User:Shambala108. |
| Sorry about that. Was transferring information from my Master sandboxes over to the main page, and some images got transferred over by accident as well. Although I did leave the images on the appearance section there on purpose, since it made sense to have a visual reference on that section.
| |
|
| |
|
| Actually, I've been meaning to ask you about the possibility of reopening the debate to make separate Master pages. I've been experimenting with it on my sandbox, and you can find the results [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Template:Masters here].[[User:BananaClownMan|BananaClownMan]] [[User talk:BananaClownMan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:03, January 28, 2019 (UTC)
| | Sorry to disturb you with this, but I felt you needed to be informed of this edit [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Star_Beast_(TV_story)?diff=3662903&oldid=3662898 here], where, even after I informed them on what you once told me about how featuring is to only include recurring characters to prevent overcrowding, [[User:Epsilon the Eternal]] still readded a single episode character to the section, essentially because they were pivotal to the plot, and then justified it by saying that an admin's word is not policy and can be ignored (at least by my reading of their edit summery). And why the character in question, [[Rose Noble]], had showed up in a short story, they have ignored my explanation that the short story doesn't make her a recurring character due to it's nature as a prelude to the episode and my request for a few weeks of patience to see if she returns. |
|
| |
|
| == Reply Problems == | | I've actually been meaning to message you about them and their decorum for some time, but this blatant disregard towards your words has pushed me into action now. For the past few months, their edit summaries have included [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Fifteenth_Doctor?diff=prev&oldid=3660630 treating arguments against their edits as attacks on the merit of their opinion], [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Theory:Timeline_-_Fourteenth_Doctor?diff=prev&oldid=3659912 reverted edits based on actions not yet taken], [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Destination:_Skaro_(TV_story)?diff=prev&oldid=3659364 put "More to Added" on fully released articles instead of contributing themselves], [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Destination:_Skaro_(TV_story)?diff=prev&oldid=3656646 indulge in rude wording] [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Destination:_Skaro_(TV_story)?diff=prev&oldid=3656310 on multiple occasions] ([https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Solitract?diff=prev&oldid=3641225 even using the name of the Lord in vain]), and engaged in unneeded hostilities [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Fourteenth_Doctor on talk pages]. |
| Hey there....I hadn't been able to get on the discussions page of the wiki for a while and now that I can, I am not able to respond to conversations. Wondering if I've been blocked again or if there's something wrong.
| |
|
| |
|
| thanks
| | I was hoping to ask if you could have a word with them, if it's not to much trouble, to inform them on proper Wiki etiquette towards other editors, and to avoid getting to personal in their edit summaries, and to remind them of why the featuring section on story pages is just for recurring characters. |
| [[User:Mister_Fifty]]
| |
|
| |
|
| =="Personal attacks"==
| | Thank you for your time. |
| Hello!
| | Sincerely, |
| | | [[User:BananaClownMan|BananaClownMan]] [[User talk:BananaClownMan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
| First-off, let's clarify that the remainder of this message is purely object-level and ''not'' an attack against you as a person. (I'd hope this'd be obvious, but I might as well be careful considering what just happened.) You no doubt committed the error detailed below with good intentions, and simply got carried away because running a Wiki is hard. (<small>I know, I run one too, though it's smaller than Tardis by a wide margin.</small>)
| |
| | |
| So. You blocked me for three days, three days ago, with the rationale that a comment of mine on [[Thread:171578]]. I'm sorry but it very much ''wasn't''. For one thing, I used a silly "nonsense word", not some actual serious insult; it's an incompetent bully indeed who'd expect "Poppycock" to be taken as actual offensive name-calling these days.
| |
| | |
| But more importantly, even if it were an attack (which really isn't how I meant it), it was in no way a ''personal'' attack. The whole point of "personal attacks" as defined on [[Tardis:No personal attacks]] is that they're attacks ''ad hominem'' — insulting a person instead of disputing their ''ideas''. Well, I did no such thing. Even if we ignore that the "Poppycock" declaration was not at all meant to be taken seriously, you yourself, in your blocking rationale, seemed to get that it was about AdricLovesNyssa's ''comment'' — nay, a specific idea therein. ''Not'' about AdricLovesNyssa themselves.
| |
| | |
| So first, whatever of the rest, I ''meant'' no harm, and if AdricLovesNyssa perceived such I'm sorry but that was in no way the intent of my words. But second, I don't see how my comment in any way fits Tardis's (or, indeed, most any) definition of a "personal attack".
| |
| | |
| Obviously, this is hardly a first-priority message, though I'd very much like to get a clear answer at ''some'' point. Reply whenever you find the time. In the meantime, I'll be back on the Forums, very much not insulting anyone thank you very much. Blah. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:21, February 13, 2019 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Scrooge MacDuck's block ==
| |
| | |
| Hi. As you suggested, [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] contacted me. I wrote [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck#Block|a response]] explaining why I stand by my block. I also noted in my response that I am not quite sure why Scrooge MacDuck [[w:c:community:Thread:1614398|persistently misspells]] your name in a way that might be interpreted as an offence. This hesitation caused me to abort the idea of shortening the block. However, if you do not find this misspelling offensive and are satisfied with Scrooge MacDuck's reaction to the blocks, I would not object if you shorten my block. However, I remain of the conviction that the second block must remain longer than the first. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:16, February 15, 2019 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Doctor Who spin-offs ==
| |
| Amorkuz removed ''Free-Fall Warriors'' from [[Doctor Who spin-offs]] because it was implicitly listed in the "Spin-offs set in the DWU" section of the page, while no inclusion debate has actually made that conclusion. In the meantime, the position of our wiki is that the ''Free-Fall Warriors'' spin-off is not set in the DWU (see also Amorkuz's deletion of the page [[Free-Fall Warriors (comic series)|Free-Fall Warriors]]). Rather than simply re-adding something an admin had deleted, I was moving it to the appropriate section of the page (namely, the "Spin-offs not set in the DWU" section). At the same time I was also adding to the list and fixing multiple formatting errors, all of which was also reverted in your undoing of my edit. Now I've written all this explanation (satisfying, I hope, the "talk to an admin about it" part of your requirement) I'm going to go ahead and undo your undoing of my edit. Thank you regardless for your thoroughness in double-checking! – [[User:NateBumber|N8]] [[User_talk:NateBumber|☎]] 03:04, February 19, 2019 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Re: Party Animals ==
| |
| Before I hand you a list of pages to delete (if that is your implication) out of my own free will, I must say pages like [[Captain Britain]], [[Bart Simpson]], [[Sapphire and Steel]], [[John Steed]] have been on this wiki for a few years and have never been subject to scrutiny by an admin until now.
| |
| | |
| A Dalek or a Meep can be identified without being named with no argument. As for non-DWU characters, [[Worf]], [[Death's Head]], the [[Thing]], and the [[Human Torch]] are in a similar situation. They are not named in Party Animals / The Incomplete Death's Head but do appear in stories ruled valid by this wiki.
| |
| | |
| Some characters are named in DWU stories (e.g. [[Hulk]], [[John Steed]]), so at the very least a mention/image of their appearance in Party Animals in a behind the scenes section would be warranted.
| |
| | |
| This is all to illustrate that Party Animals certainly is an unusual story. I think it's valuable to have a complete list of all the obscure characters seen in this story and you truly have to "see it to believe it." Perhaps a Forum thread should be opened to discuss this in-depth with other users and admins before the recent hard work of myself and others is swept under the rug. And I'm not sure how I feel about an admin wanting to make an extreme decision about pages regarding a story they have not read. [[User:LegoK9|LegoK9]] [[User talk:LegoK9|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:56, March 2, 2019 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Re: Party Animals 2 ==
| |
| A potential compromise has come to mind. If the individual pages for [[Axel Pressbutton]], [[Cusick and Doot]], et al. must be deleted, would it be acceptable to have a gallery at the bottom of [[Party Animals (comic story)]] Showing the images of characters that cannot have a separate page for lacking mentions in DWU stories? (Edit: [[User:LegoK9|LegoK9]] [[User talk:LegoK9|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:17, March 2, 2019 (UTC)) I wouldn't want the work I put into getting these images be erased so soon.
| |
| | |
| Also, I'm aware admins aren't employees and I apologise for implying otherwise. [[User:LegoK9|LegoK9]] [[User talk:LegoK9|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:16, March 2, 2019 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Images ==
| |
| You deleted my images for lack of info on source of work and copyright
| |
| HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE SOURCE OF WORK AND COPYRIGHT OF A MEME CAT IMAGE?
| |
| [[User:GarfielfStuff|GarfielfStuff]] [[User talk:GarfielfStuff|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:11, March 4, 2019 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Hi Shambala108,
| |
| | |
| I hope you can help me. I'd like to apologise for the edits on my author page - I hadn't seen the guidelines when I posted the synopsis and notes, and I didn't get a notification for the first removal, so I assumed it was a glitch.
| |
| | |
| I have now seen the guidelines for authors, and I think I understand the reasoning behind the no-self-editing rule. I can see that comments by other people would be less subjective and more detached.
| |
| | |
| Can I explain why this is important to me? I have spent the last 18 months writing a series of YA novels. Not DW-related in any way, so they won't be showing up here. For long and complicated reasons, I am self-publishing the series, and for this I need an audience. My only previously published work of fiction is the short story in 'Iris Wildthyme of Mars', so that's my shop window, for anyone who wants to find out about me, and my writing.
| |
|
| |
|
| Self-publishing is really, really hard. I have to spend precious writing time building my presence online, and trying to reach as many people as possible. I'm putting myself out there on social media, and trying to make sure that if people search for me, they find useful and interesting resources.
| | == Edit war == |
|
| |
|
| A synopsis for my short story on this website would be a massive help for me - for my exposure, and as a place to direct people who want to know more about my writing. To this end, the synopsis I posted is short, accurate, and reflects the as-published text of the story. It's not DW canon. It doesn't reinterpret anything. I haven't added anything that isn't in the text. But it is the only place online where my name could be associated with information about my story.
| | Hi, Shambala. There's the potential for an edit war at [[Beep the Meep]]. Wondering if you could help resolve it. [[User:Jack "BtR" Saxon|Jack "BtR" Saxon]] [[User talk:Jack "BtR" Saxon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| The notes are more subjective, but I have read reviews from people who hadn't made the connection between my story and the source material, and this would be a great place to share those notes. Again - there is no additional interpretation, and nothing I have written reinterprets DW canon in any way.
| | == Re:Request for help == |
|
| |
|
| So I guess I'm pleading for a chance to incorporate these pages into my online presence in a way that would be helpful to my readers. I can see that the rules are there to prevent writers from adding extras or referring to unpublished versions of the text - but that's not what I've done here. I have worked as an editor, and written blurbs and synopses for other books - that's all I'm doing here.
| | I've looked through your cited page above, and looked over the linked examples. |
|
| |
|
| As an indie author, I don't have an agent or a publisher to do this stuff for me, so I have no option but to write my own online content. It seems unfair that someone with a team could use the rest of their team to post for them, while I am barred from posting at all because I have to be my own agent and publisher.
| | I'm also aware of both editors' edits throughout the past few years, although acknowledge I've not been as active as I had been in the past. |
|
| |
|
| I would really, really appreciate it if the synopsis and notes could be reposted. It would make an enormous difference to me, and to my ability to reach my audience. | | I generally come at this from the perspective of 'is there a policy I can point to for a reason for this edit'. Epsilon does cite many of their edits regarding a policy. However the edit summary war is something that cannot continue, it's a nightmare to cite any discussion and it's not what the summaries are for regardless. |
|
| |
|
| I apologise for the reposts yesterday - I had not fully understood the situation, and it was not my intention to break any rules or cause trouble. | | I'm unsure on a few of the cited issues by Banana, but can see how they may find some things vexatious. |
|
| |
|
| Thank you for reading this far! I appreciate your time and attention.
| | I think all users can have their issues, and while Epsilon has had a few citations against them in the past, there have been extraneous circumstances around those in some regards. |
|
| |
|
| Rachel Churcher. [[User:Rachel Churcher|Rachel Churcher]] [[User talk:Rachel Churcher|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:00, March 6, 2019 (UTC)
| | We've not had a proper forum to engage new policies for in some time, and that's where rulings should come into play. Citing a reason for an edit especially something which might result in an edit war over inclusion of a character (or not) should be backed up by a talk page decision, forum or policy. Citing the word of an admin while it might seem like the 'voice of the flying spaghetti monster' in terms of resolving or justifying an edit, however it is better to be citing a policy or discussion. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 01:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| | == [[AudioGO]] == |
|
| |
|
| PS. I'm also struggling with the author photo on my author page. Which licence should I be using from the drop-down list? It's a photo taken of me, by my husband, where I hold the copyright, so technically I guess that there isn't a licence, because there doesn't need to be. It's me using my own photo. Any advice would be very welcome - thank you!
| | Hi, Shambala. This page keeps being vandalised. [[User:Jack "BtR" Saxon|Jack "BtR" Saxon]] [[User talk:Jack "BtR" Saxon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == Novel == | | == My "Who vs elsewhere" polls == |
|
| |
|
| Hello, apologies for the move. May you please rename Destination: Bandril to Destination: Bandril (novel)? Thanks.--[[User:Crazyface201|Crazyface201]] [[User talk:Crazyface201|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:34, March 12, 2019 (UTC) | | Hello, |
|
| |
|
| == IP user block ==
| | Would the admins have any objections if I did some further entries to my "Who vs [insert]" polls? I know the cards are heavily stacked, but still...the Lord loves a tryer, eh? |
|
| |
|
| For one thing, there wasn't ''quite'' an edit war, as it did not go on for long enough to meet the technical definition at [[T:NO WARS]]. 6 month bans are absolutely correct for IP users who are outright vandalising, or disrupting the wiki repeatedly in bad faith. 6 months for an IP user is nearly an infinite block, as their IP is likely to have changed by that time.
| | [[User:Kevin 'Chalky' Kaiba|Kevin 'Chalky' Kaiba]] [[User talk:Kevin 'Chalky' Kaiba|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| In this case, as the block summary you selected suggests, the most said user needed was time to "cool down". As this didn’t fully become an edit war, from the outside it seems more like you were trying to silence this user for their other edits, essentially taking another POV. As it stands, we have not yet established the best way to deal with real world trans people's deadnames on the wiki, so their method of dealing with it is entirely valid.
| | == Merry Christmas And Happy New Year == |
|
| |
|
| I understand your intentions, but it was only ''almost'' an edit war, and on a point we have not yet decided. As it happens, I think the majority of this user's edits were positive. These are real world people, and we have to do our best to actually respect them. It's one thing to speak of fictional characters more theoretically; it's quite another not to do our utmost as editors to treat the real people we cover with dignity and respect. This user could have used the talk page instead of undoing edits, certainly, but they were not at all acting out of bad faith, so a lengthy ban does not match the level of that mistake.{{User:SOTO/sig}} 15:08, March 20, 2019 (UTC)
| | Have a good rest of 2023 and a great 2024 and onward [[User:Sum41Champ]] |
| ::Sorry I didn't reply to your message sooner. I had some other things to deal with, both here and in real life. Just to clarify, in case I mispoke, what I was trying to get across is that ''to an outsider'' it might seem you had other motives. We have worked alongside each other as admin for many years now, and I do not believe that you would do such a thing myself. If that is what came across in my message above, I apologise.
| |
|
| |
|
| ::Seeing your message to Amorkuz, though, I do have to remind you once again that I am ''not'' a "he". In case you hadn't realised from past exchanges, or perhaps from reading the masthead on my user page and user talk page, I am nonbinary and I use they/them pronouns. I have never misgendered you and called you anything other than "she", to my knowledge, and I would ask that you do the same. In the spirit of assuming good faith, as you point out, I'm assuming you hadn't yet realised. I did use other pronouns when I started out back in 2012, so I understand how that might be confusing. | | == RE: Sockpuppet == |
|
| |
|
| ::Cheers,{{User:SOTO/sig}} 01:27, March 22, 2019 (UTC) | | Hey! Hope all is going well. I don't have [[Help:CheckUser|CheckUser]] access myself, since I'm not Fandom staff, but I'll pass it along, since it seems like we have reasonable suspicion! |
|
| |
|
| == Re:Images ==
| | Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Happy holidays.{{User:SOTO/sig}} 18:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Ahh, that makes a ton of sense, especially on long pages like [[Eleventh Doctor]]. I guess I'd be curious about how that guideline would apply to significantly shorter pages: for a relevant example, I don't think [[Time corridor]]'s two images posed much of a serious burden to loading speeds, and it's a real shame to see one of them [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Time_corridor?curid=10047&diff=2691867&oldid=2691866 removed] like that. Probably one of those scenarios where I should pester CzechOut about it?
| | : I just wanted to mention that [[User:Spongebob456]] is probably the easiest Fandom staff member to contact for things like this as he's our wiki rep. He's who I've gone to for a few similar requests in the past (which I've done through his Discord but you could probably do through his talk page). [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Thank you for such a speedy reply, and for digging up that quote as well! – [[User:NateBumber|N8]] [[User_talk:NateBumber|☎]] 00:27, March 21, 2019 (UTC)
| | :: And that's exactly who I went to, in fact! But no problem at all. |
|
| |
|
| ==Images==
| | :: Spongebob456 confirmed via Discord that all the accounts you linked are, in fact, related. I'm giving indefinite blocks to the new accounts, and I'll leave it to you to decide how long to extend their sentence on whichever is their main account. Cheers{{User:SOTO/sig}} 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
| I see what you mean, but having one image per section means that the plot section of, say, ''Deep Breath'' can have only one image whilst ''The Daleks' Master Plan'' can have twelve because it has different sections for each episode. If the goal is to make it easier for mobile users, this doesn't make much sense to me. -- [[User:Jack "BtR" Saxon|Saxon]] 10:45, March 21, 2019 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Recent blocks == | | == Spacing with categories == |
|
| |
|
| Hi, Shambala108. I would like to explain why we are hesitant to put up the nascent deadname policy for public discussion. Generally, I am all for democracy and power to the people. But the recent years have clearly shown that there are wedge issues where the people's will can lead to complete chaos, which benefits no one. In addition, the rights of minorities are hard to secure by a general consensus, especially when the minority is really small and their problems are, on the face of it, alien and unknown to the majority.
| | What's the purpose of the space? I See 0 effect that has on the page, Happy New Year. [[User:Sum41Champ]] |
|
| |
|
| It is one thing to require community consensus for policies relating to the fictional DWU. It is quite another to make community consensus the condition for respecting a group of people or eliminating things that are hurtful to them. Consensus is a matter of awareness and did fail the humanity on multiple occasions in history. At different points, there was a consensus in support of slavery, witch trials, refusing to let women vote, GULAG, etc. For instance, there is only one country I know of (Ireland) where the issue of gay marriage was decided via a referendum. In the majority of cases, it is the judiciary that decides to stop discrimination.
| | == Trying to locate a missing thread == |
| | Hell there. Hope all is well. I was wondering if you could help me with a query concerning a missing thread I am having trouble locating that is listed on several incarnations of the Doctor's articles. The thread I am referring to is mentioned as follows in the template on the articles's lede section: |
|
| |
|
| Secondly, such an open debate would not be academic. It will tread on people's feelings. As you could see from yesterday, some people have very strong feelings on the matter (thanks for blocking by the way) and are not afraid to express them. I'm sure trolls from 4chan would relish the opportunity to leave their footprint too. But even discounting radicals and trolls, ordinary well-meaning users cannot be expected to be sensitive of the topic they are not aware of. Upon learning about the concept of "deadnames", I've had several discussions with cis people like myself. The first reaction is normally incredulity. The closest thing in our own experience is changing a name through marriage, which is, I am told, not the same thing at all. If incredulity is met with an unabashed attack like the one you deleted, if a person who never thought about trans people is called a "transphobic so-and-so" right off the bat, the discussion will be hurtful and not very likely to be productive. And even if everyone, including new users who, as you pointed out earlier, are often drawn to the forums first, manage to keep civil, the lack of knowledge of the issues can cause a lot of hurt too. Our editors really like to argue. Just recently, [[User:Scrooge MacDuck]] was dead set on fictionalising a real-world minor with utter disregard to her or her family wishes. It took me quite a long while to explain to him why it is wrong to play with lives of real people so carelessly. He meant well, but her privacy and right to self-determination was simply not high on his priorities' list. The same is likely to happen here: cis editors will provide their well-meaning opinion on how they think trans people should treat their names. And the smallest spark will explode the discussion.
| | ''As detailed at [[Thread:264489]], character pages should only have AT MOST 2-3 sentences per story, not whole paragraphs of plot detail. This page needs a major cleanup in that area.'' |
|
| |
|
| This is why we believe it is in everybody's best interests if the issue is discussed among the admin, who represent different points of view and come from different walks of life. We would be more than happy if you join this discussion. But opening it up to the troll factories of this world would not be the best course of actions, IMHO. [[User:Amorkuz|Amorkuz]] [[User talk:Amorkuz|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:46, March 21, 2019 (UTC)
| | As you can see though, this link to said thread is red, hence doesn't take me anywhere when I click it. |
|
| |
|
| == Image debate ==
| | Per some users (anonymous editors) removing it from the page, I began to do some digging as to the thread itself, in preparation for setting myself on the task of shortening down the Doctor articles myself in time, having already began work doing so with the CS links per my conversation with [[User:Scrooge MacDuck]]. In doing so, I discovered you are the one who added said template onto the Doctor articles back in 2020 (see the following link as an example: https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Twelfth_Doctor?diff=prev&oldid=3015495 ) |
| Hello, User:Shambala108.
| |
|
| |
|
| I've been watching the exchanges between users about image policy. I wanted to ask you if you could share a link to this policy with me, as I wish to debate a changing to this "one image per section" rule. | | Therefore, are you able to provide me information as to the thread itself or link me to the archive where it is stored? I don't want to trouble myself shortening all the articles if this thread has been superceded or reverted, hence does not actually have to be acted upon now. In which case, I could take to removing the templates from the Doctor's articles instead. |
|
| |
|
| Now, before I get turned away, I wanted to let you know that my mobile phone has never had trouble opening a page with lots of images, with the exception of [[the Master]]'s page, but that's mostly due to length rather than content.
| | Looking forward to your reply. [[User:Snivystorm|<font face="Georgia"><font color="#1E90FF">''Snivy''</font></font>]]<font face="Arial"><font color="dodgerblue"> </font> [[User talk:Snivystorm|<small style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; "><font face="Cambria"><font color="Grey">✦ ''The coolest Pokemon ever'' ✦</font></font></small>]]</font> 17:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| However, I am aware of the other reason images are restricted; "to many bakers can spoil the cake". Image overflowing has been an issue, which is one of the points I plan to make in my debate.
| | :On this subject Shambala, it ''does'' still apply, it's just sorta been rolled into the broader reforms discussed in [[Forum:Temporary forums/Subpages 2.0]], as Bongo alluded to on Snivy's talk. The work here has really been touch and go, but it's very much live policy, just a real headache to implement. And archived forum threads from the 2012-2020 forums are at [[User:SOTO/Forum Archive]]. (Well, okay, it's a bit more complicated than that, because there are actually some forum archives that can only be accessed through URLs and not that index. But it's pretty obvious where to look if you pay attention to the URLs.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Thank you for your time.
| | Yes, I know what you mean about the loading times. My experience on mobile viewing is atrocious for the long character articles and editing on mobile is near-impossible for me on them because it seems to crash or be so long to respond to the changes, even in source editor. Hence, I near-exclusively edit on desktop these days. I completely understand why editors appear apathetic to the change though; perhaps its the perks of superior internet speed or something, but these long articles do make editing a chore sometimes, necessitating having to edit solely in sections rather than whole page edits. |
| Sincerely,
| |
| [[User:BananaClownMan|BananaClownMan]] [[User talk:BananaClownMan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:29, March 21, 2019 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Image policy ==
| | From what [[User:Bongolium500]] sent me, it appears there's still the intention for the articles to be trimmed down as the template requests, it just seems no one - or very few editors - are actually bothering to do it, hence the templates remaining after 3 and a bit years of its request being placed. Same could be said for the CS link conversion since a mix of editors still use variants of the old format. If the task to do it is still needed though, and hence isn't going to be a waste of my time, I can begin implementing the change. |
| I'm trying to get an image policy finalized, and would like to invite you to discuss it on [[Thread:247941]].
| |
|
| |
|
| Sincerely,
| | Thank you once more for responding to me message! [[User:Snivystorm|<font face="Georgia"><font color="#1E90FF">''Snivy''</font></font>]]<font face="Arial"><font color="dodgerblue"> </font> [[User talk:Snivystorm|<small style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; "><font face="Cambria"><font color="Grey">✦ ''The coolest Pokemon ever'' ✦</font></font></small>]]</font> 11:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
| [[User:BananaClownMan|BananaClownMan]] [[User talk:BananaClownMan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:24, March 21, 2019 (UTC) | |
| :Sorry, this link won't work because of me. BCM and I posted within less than 5 minutes of each other in separate locations, so I deleted the thread in preference for the area that already contained a good bit of useful discussion — his talk page. And the entire contents of the thread are now on his talk page. Sorry for any confusion that might have created. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}} 03:08: Fri 22 Mar 2019</span>
| |
| | |
| == Reply == | |
| I think blocking is a little extreme, since its not such a case of "flagrant defying of admin instructions". I thought things were being rushed into, reverted the page to the previous version while leaving a description explaining that I though a debate should be taken before removing a large chunk of information, especially since it was stated by other users that they disagreed with the current stance on image numbers, and have not reverted the pages now that a debate is going on.
| |
| | |
| You are within your right to feel that I was being antagonistic with my edit, but I assure you that it came from a genuine feeling that a mistake was being made, and I did my best to come across as non-aggressive as I could be by opening to doors for discussion, and have not repeated the offence since being directly told by and having a discussion with [[User:CzechOut]].
| |
| | |
| For these reasons, I humbly request not to be blocked from editing, not only so I can continue to talk with [[User:CzechOut]] and others on the debate on my talk page, but also because my actions were not born out of aggression or trolling, but out of a belief that I was doing the right thing, and I have ceased my actions after being informed otherwise.
| |
| | |
| P.S. It would seem that the reason the link doesn't work is because the debate was deleted and moved to my talk page for some reason.
| |
| | |
| Sincerely,
| |
| [[User:BananaClownMan|BananaClownMan]] [[User talk:BananaClownMan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 10:22, March 22, 2019 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :: I can see where you're coming from. I'm sorry that I didn't take how newcomers could be influenced by such actions. I guess I just don't see myself as such a big deal. I just see myself as one of thousands of editors that can be interchangeable at times. Besides, since a debate has started, I no longer feel the need to revert those edits, as it is being discussed whether or not they should be there, and the debate is currently leading into the negative, and I will follow which ever way that talk ends.[[User:BananaClownMan|BananaClownMan]] [[User talk:BananaClownMan|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:20, March 22, 2019 (UTC)
| | == Follow Up == |
|
| |
|
| == Re page moves ==
| | I Sent you a message on the purpose of spacing categories and you didn't get back. You have to give a solid reason as to how that affect a page for me to know the issue. [[User:Sum41Champ]] |
| Hi Shambala108, so if I think a page needs renaming should I just put a Speedy rename template on it and put T:DAB TERM as the reason? [[User:Doc77can|Doc77can]] [[User talk:Doc77can|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:32, March 31, 2019 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| Could you please explain why you deleted the cyberman weapons page. I do not mean to be hostile.
| | == Re: Edits == |
|
| |
|
| What topics could I make a page about without them being deleted?
| | Thank you so much! I appreciate the kind words. I'm always happy to fix and clean up articles whenever I see any that need it, and I'm glad to be part of such a welcoming wiki community. [[User:BlueSupergiant|BlueSupergiant]] [[User talk:BlueSupergiant|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17
|
Something you might want to look into[[edit source]]
Hello, User:Shambala108.
Sorry to disturb you with this, but I felt you needed to be informed of this edit here, where, even after I informed them on what you once told me about how featuring is to only include recurring characters to prevent overcrowding, User:Epsilon the Eternal still readded a single episode character to the section, essentially because they were pivotal to the plot, and then justified it by saying that an admin's word is not policy and can be ignored (at least by my reading of their edit summery). And why the character in question, Rose Noble, had showed up in a short story, they have ignored my explanation that the short story doesn't make her a recurring character due to it's nature as a prelude to the episode and my request for a few weeks of patience to see if she returns.
I've actually been meaning to message you about them and their decorum for some time, but this blatant disregard towards your words has pushed me into action now. For the past few months, their edit summaries have included treating arguments against their edits as attacks on the merit of their opinion, reverted edits based on actions not yet taken, put "More to Added" on fully released articles instead of contributing themselves, indulge in rude wording on multiple occasions (even using the name of the Lord in vain), and engaged in unneeded hostilities on talk pages.
I was hoping to ask if you could have a word with them, if it's not to much trouble, to inform them on proper Wiki etiquette towards other editors, and to avoid getting to personal in their edit summaries, and to remind them of why the featuring section on story pages is just for recurring characters.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
BananaClownMan ☎ 04:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Shambala. There's the potential for an edit war at Beep the Meep. Wondering if you could help resolve it. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 22:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I've looked through your cited page above, and looked over the linked examples.
I'm also aware of both editors' edits throughout the past few years, although acknowledge I've not been as active as I had been in the past.
I generally come at this from the perspective of 'is there a policy I can point to for a reason for this edit'. Epsilon does cite many of their edits regarding a policy. However the edit summary war is something that cannot continue, it's a nightmare to cite any discussion and it's not what the summaries are for regardless.
I'm unsure on a few of the cited issues by Banana, but can see how they may find some things vexatious.
I think all users can have their issues, and while Epsilon has had a few citations against them in the past, there have been extraneous circumstances around those in some regards.
We've not had a proper forum to engage new policies for in some time, and that's where rulings should come into play. Citing a reason for an edit especially something which might result in an edit war over inclusion of a character (or not) should be backed up by a talk page decision, forum or policy. Citing the word of an admin while it might seem like the 'voice of the flying spaghetti monster' in terms of resolving or justifying an edit, however it is better to be citing a policy or discussion. --Tangerineduel / talk 01:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Shambala. This page keeps being vandalised. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 13:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
My "Who vs elsewhere" polls[[edit source]]
Hello,
Would the admins have any objections if I did some further entries to my "Who vs [insert]" polls? I know the cards are heavily stacked, but still...the Lord loves a tryer, eh?
Kevin 'Chalky' Kaiba ☎ 22:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas And Happy New Year[[edit source]]
Have a good rest of 2023 and a great 2024 and onward User:Sum41Champ
Hey! Hope all is going well. I don't have CheckUser access myself, since I'm not Fandom staff, but I'll pass it along, since it seems like we have reasonable suspicion!
Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Happy holidays.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 18:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I just wanted to mention that User:Spongebob456 is probably the easiest Fandom staff member to contact for things like this as he's our wiki rep. He's who I've gone to for a few similar requests in the past (which I've done through his Discord but you could probably do through his talk page). Bongo50 ☎ 18:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- And that's exactly who I went to, in fact! But no problem at all.
- Spongebob456 confirmed via Discord that all the accounts you linked are, in fact, related. I'm giving indefinite blocks to the new accounts, and I'll leave it to you to decide how long to extend their sentence on whichever is their main account. Cheers
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
What's the purpose of the space? I See 0 effect that has on the page, Happy New Year. User:Sum41Champ
Trying to locate a missing thread[[edit source]]
Hell there. Hope all is well. I was wondering if you could help me with a query concerning a missing thread I am having trouble locating that is listed on several incarnations of the Doctor's articles. The thread I am referring to is mentioned as follows in the template on the articles's lede section:
As detailed at Thread:264489, character pages should only have AT MOST 2-3 sentences per story, not whole paragraphs of plot detail. This page needs a major cleanup in that area.
As you can see though, this link to said thread is red, hence doesn't take me anywhere when I click it.
Per some users (anonymous editors) removing it from the page, I began to do some digging as to the thread itself, in preparation for setting myself on the task of shortening down the Doctor articles myself in time, having already began work doing so with the CS links per my conversation with User:Scrooge MacDuck. In doing so, I discovered you are the one who added said template onto the Doctor articles back in 2020 (see the following link as an example: https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Twelfth_Doctor?diff=prev&oldid=3015495 )
Therefore, are you able to provide me information as to the thread itself or link me to the archive where it is stored? I don't want to trouble myself shortening all the articles if this thread has been superceded or reverted, hence does not actually have to be acted upon now. In which case, I could take to removing the templates from the Doctor's articles instead.
Looking forward to your reply. Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 17:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- On this subject Shambala, it does still apply, it's just sorta been rolled into the broader reforms discussed in Forum:Temporary forums/Subpages 2.0, as Bongo alluded to on Snivy's talk. The work here has really been touch and go, but it's very much live policy, just a real headache to implement. And archived forum threads from the 2012-2020 forums are at User:SOTO/Forum Archive. (Well, okay, it's a bit more complicated than that, because there are actually some forum archives that can only be accessed through URLs and not that index. But it's pretty obvious where to look if you pay attention to the URLs.) Najawin ☎ 05:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean about the loading times. My experience on mobile viewing is atrocious for the long character articles and editing on mobile is near-impossible for me on them because it seems to crash or be so long to respond to the changes, even in source editor. Hence, I near-exclusively edit on desktop these days. I completely understand why editors appear apathetic to the change though; perhaps its the perks of superior internet speed or something, but these long articles do make editing a chore sometimes, necessitating having to edit solely in sections rather than whole page edits.
From what User:Bongolium500 sent me, it appears there's still the intention for the articles to be trimmed down as the template requests, it just seems no one - or very few editors - are actually bothering to do it, hence the templates remaining after 3 and a bit years of its request being placed. Same could be said for the CS link conversion since a mix of editors still use variants of the old format. If the task to do it is still needed though, and hence isn't going to be a waste of my time, I can begin implementing the change.
Thank you once more for responding to me message! Snivy ✦ The coolest Pokemon ever ✦ 11:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I Sent you a message on the purpose of spacing categories and you didn't get back. You have to give a solid reason as to how that affect a page for me to know the issue. User:Sum41Champ
Thank you so much! I appreciate the kind words. I'm always happy to fix and clean up articles whenever I see any that need it, and I'm glad to be part of such a welcoming wiki community. BlueSupergiant ☎ 19:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
