User talk:Shambala108
Something you might want to look into
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)
Edit war
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)
Re:Request for help
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)
AudioGO
Hi, Shambala. This page keeps being vandalised. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 13:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
