Hi, On the topic of sourcing, I wanted to let you know something about using other wikis and IMDb; those sites are not entirely reliable sources. Like the Disney Wiki, wikis rely on references and sources to provide evidence for the information, and trusting on something unsourced on another wiki doesn't necessarily mean it is true. IMDb has a similar problem, in that, like the wiki, it can be edited by non-affiliated site users with conjectural information. So tip for the future, I would be careful and avoid relying on unsourced sites that allow other people to add what they want, because it could potentially be untrue. I hope that explains things to you.
Thanks for the info I guess it somewhat maeks sense. To be honest I as well as several other users are still extremely confused by what sites you consider reliable. That confusion usually results in a mass number of chaos between users and admins.
To clear things up a bit, what website for example would you consider a truly reliable source?
I'll be careful with my edits eitehr way. I promise.
I never mean to start any edit wars. I just thought the Incredimoble was recovered and repainted. But now I understand I was truly mistaken--from the books and the script and watching the closing scene on youtube made me realize I was mistaken and you were correct. It was the family station wagon, not Bob's super-car.
It was a simple mistake and a genuine misunderstanding on my part. Sorry about that.
Sorry about that. In my defense, I never mean to upload duplicates. In fact, I don't enjoy doing it at all. It's just that whenever I notice I made a spelling mistake when naming an image, it forces me to upload a similar image with the proper spelling and then mark the previous mispelled image for deletion. So you see, I'm just as stressed as you are.
Say do you think you can tell me how to redirect images without inserting a new image and marking the previous one for deletion? Thanks. That would save me a whole lot more trouble.
Go to "Images" there is a button on your right that reads "Add New Image". Click on it, and click on "More Options" you'll have access to naming your image and as well insert categories in "Caption". To insert categories, you do it like so...
[[Category:Images of people]]
If you click on an image and then click on the heading, you'll be taken to the source, where you can rename it or insert categories.
I'm trying to follow your advice but i'm in a bit of a jam. For example I'm trying to redirect this photo of Linda Larkin photo labeled "Linda-Larkin.jpg" and I'm trying to rename andd redirect the image it without the dash in between. I've followed your instructions about the more options inserting but so far nothing.
It seems only admins can rename images. Worth a shot.
I made a mistake. Only Admins and Content Mods can rename images. So, I suggest you follow my first piece of advice when you upload your images. Better yet, rename your images as you save them to your computer/tablet/laptop/phone/whatever it is you do.
So bottom line, editors are able to rename articles but not images. Only admins can rename images. That makes sence to enough to me. The only renaming articles I recall doing is doing stuff like removing the comma off articles Cuba Gooding, Jr since a lot of sources nowadays omit the comma. Nothing harmful in that right?
Anyway, thanks so much for helping with this stressful issue. I genuinely appreciate it. From now on, I'll try my very best to make sure my images are properly spelled before I insert them into the wiki.
It's going to take forever to remove these categories. Don't you give second thoughts to what you're about to do? There are things I have been tempted to do. Some I went through with, some I haven't. Sometimes doing stuff without other opinions from the community gets one into trouble.
Well, I don't wanna argue, but SNL is a reality sketch late night show. How does that not count? Some have hosted it countless times like Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin and John Goodman. Are you saying SNL counts depending on how often an actor has hosted it?
Or are you saying people who host self-titled shows count Jimmy Kimmel. Or Comedy sketch hosts like recently The Joel McHale Show with Joel McHale.
Oh, sorry. I'm still trying to get used to these changes on wiki.
I agree that putting the birthdate in both places is a bit redundant. but I still thought looks kinda odd to have the intro paragraph to exclude it.
However, may I suggest one last little compromise? Perhaps we could have both sections have DOB both the intro paragraph and infobox. Only difference is the intro paragraph is not hyperlinked while the infobox is.
Whatever the case may be, I will try my best to get used to these policy changes on Disney wiki. After all, changes are a very important part of life after all.
Hello there, I was informed that you and another user had been having some trouble with understanding why some of your articles were getting deleted, and in the communication, you both got blocked. However, while I'm not entirely clear on why you were blocked as I was not involved in the argument, I would like to hear your side; I have seen your activity in the past, and I sense your edits are in good faith. I don't believe you were blocked for violating anything, so I want to understand your reasons, and hopefully we can reach a better solution, as well as how we can both perform better in the future.
User:Alex2424121 kept aimlessly deleting articles depsite them obviously not having any harm in the wiki. He keeps stating that he wants what's best for this wiki, but he's doing nothing but aimlesly deleting random articles--deleting all our hard work. I tried reasoning with him and suggesting him to look at us users perspective other than his own, but he refuses to listen. I tried compromising him to give us suggestions on how to improve our artciles. To no avail.
And yet SS200 and I get blocked for trying to reason wwith him and sticking up for this unfairness. I got blocked until May 14.
As content moderater, Alex should remind whichever user created a new page what they can do to improve it. As in give users some helpful advice on how I can improve the article. That way, I might know what's wrong with the article and I’ll start understand what he deems to be appropriate material for the wiki. Hopefully that way, I’ll begin to understand more about what you consider appropriate content for his page. Articles shouldn't be deleted unannounced. But he just stubbornly blew me off.
SS200 and I tried everything we could to resolve this issue and even set reasonable compromises (like telling what was wrong with an certain artcile) so that admins and users can be treated fairly, and he still acts as if things should only go his way. He just doesn't seem listen to anyone.
Could you please convince him to start giving us users helpful advice on how to improve certain articles instead of just deleting them on the spot unnannounced?
Please don't let me get my block extended for replying to this message.
I understand you're upset, and I'm some cases I cannot say I defend that behavior, but when one is stressed they tend to make hasty decisions, such as your block. I can let him know he can try not to panic in the future and try to advise users without getting upset. However, what articles were you making that he deleted?
He deleted a lot of celebrity articles, despite them having appeared in a few Disney-related media. Such as Alan Ruck (who appeared in a few episodes of Sofia the First), and Mark Waters (who directed the 2003 remake of Freaky Friday and upcoming film Magic Camp') .
I always thoguht as long as a celeb has appeared in at least one Disney/Touchstone/Miramax/Marvel/ABC related media, then they get a page on the Disney wiki. And that sound fair enogh to me. That's how it's always been on this wiki.
I admit the articles were a bit short, but he could've easily expanded more details about them instead of just removing them.
I see. The articles do cover things those people did, and definitely not that minor if they've done it more than once. Although, if they weren't given much detail when they were made, it does make the job seem rushed and unprofessional. They can be expanded, yes, but in general it is best to avoid leaving something as a stub and adding to it gradually, otherwise it doesn't seem like one is putting effort into the article. In other words, I can see you were adding articles with valid relationships to Disney, but leaving them in short amount when made is not always good practice. So I recommend you can give some more to articles when you do make them, instead of depending on adding more later.
I'll keep that in mind Silver. I'll try to be more descriptive in what I write. But there's still another problem
But ALex242421 also randomly deleted articles that were extremely cosisde and descriptive. (ie: Marisa Tomei) I know he's extremely stubborn and firm on what he believes on this wiki, but I'd geninenly appreciate it if he would try to view things in his fellow users' perspective because one of an admin's most improtant priorities is making sure his fellow users are satisfied, happy, adn treated fairly. I tried d
I'd genunely appreciate it if he'd try to see through his users' point of view and think what's best for his fellow users and not just himself. I'd be eternally grateful if he'd accept our compromise to tell us what articles needs to be improved please? Just deleting them is a waste of work and we don't want that. Could you pelase convince him to take users point of view?
The point is I have total confidence and I and every other user should have the right to put whatever you want on this wiki as long as that information is relevant to Disney.
I can relate with stubbornness, but it is better to get along than insist your way, that I agree on. I also encourage you to not be resentful, Alex has felt some guilt for what he did you.
On your last message, however, I can not say I entirely agree with. I'd be careful with thinking that way: "users should have the right to put whatever you want on this wiki as long as that information is relevant to Disney" is easily the avenue to personal bias dictating what's right, even if you're not doing it for intentionally selfish reasons. Believe me, having that mindset caused people to think they were getting their work removed unfairly, when to many others, that work was actually off-topic and poorly-maintained, but to the creator they tried to defend it saying it was relevant. We have rules to keep things on track, but we don't try exerting what's right and wrong either. What's important is discussing and understanding those rules, and learning from users and staff how to work with them but still contributing to the site. With you and Alex, if he cannot explain how you two can reach a compromise, I can say that he should tell you what you can improve first, and that he can help you with that.
I guess that makes sense. I'm going to make sure whenever I create an article, it should be consise and not just only two sentences.
As for Alex, I'm glad he feels some genuine remorse for what he's done to me. I think I can forgive him. However, I might be able to forgive him even more if he could start giving me and other users advice we need to improve on--like adding more content to articles for instance. Do you think you can get him to start giving me and other users suggestions on what we need to improve on?
I don't think User:Alex2424121 is really willing to listen to what we have to say. He's now accusing us of being stubborn, when he's acting stubborn himself. It even says that he's stubborn on his user page. So, I think we may have to complain to the administrators at some point.
Well, a lot of these links don't have images because they're on upcoming media yet to be relased (like Incredibles 2 characters, and other films and media in development) I'll try to work on the ones that aren't stuff that for future purposes.
Could you give me a specific example that isn't one of those things please? Like a celebrity article with no picture or something similar.
Anyway I'll try my best to fill in what I can fill in.
There's almost 3000 pages in this category. Some is upcoming content, but most of it isn't. If you could find images of celebrities (or maybe other pages without images), and you could add a picture, it would be appreciated. You don't have to do this, but I noticed that you were uploading images in pages that already have pictures, so I thought this may help even out the other articles. Take your time if you decide to do this. Thanks.
When replacing images on People pages, please don't forget about the previous image you replaced it with. Put it on a gallery. If it's of low-quality, categories it as "Images that need higher quality replacements"
Images that need higher quality replacements? So far all I've been doing with low-quality images is marking them for deletion. Tagging them for replacement that's a great idea! I can't believe I never thoguht of that.
Well, Okay next time I'll tag low quality images as "need high quality replacements".
I understand why he said that as pages can get crowded. If he said that, in that case, mark the old images for deletetion please. We can delete unneccessary pics that are on the wikia, but dont serve any purpose. Put it under "Category:Candidates for speedy deletion". Thanks
My pleasure. So bottom line, I should mark old images for deletion. On the other hand, if the previous image is still good and worth keeping, I'll move it to the gallery section. Sounds like a plan to me.