In the future, try not to leave edit summaries like this, no matter how facetious or sarcastic you may have intended it to be. We are all capable of making mistakes and the great thing about the Wiki is that they can be easily corrected.
Hi Alex. Remember to identify sources for edits like this, whether you add a source in the page text using ref tags, or mention it or add a link in your edit summary. For the record, I can't find any mention of the episode name online.
Hi. I noticed a couple of your recent messages that don't strike a particularly friendly tone. Correcting another user's formatting or editing mistake is helpful, but saying "How many times do I have to tell you" in an edit summary is not in the proper spirit of collaboration. A reminder that a Wikia is a group project where we all work together. Most new users that come in aren't going to immediately know or learn our editing/formatting guidelines right away. It's good to correct, but not to scold. So please, less of that in the future. Thanks.
Another tip, Alex. If you're still getting frustrated with another editor (as per this), leave them a polite note on their user page (i.e. "Hi, just so you know, what this phrase means is that it includes all streaming services," etc). It usually works better than edit summaries (if the user hasn't gone back to that specific page, they're easy to miss; not everyone checks all of recent changes) and in this specific case, it's a newer user who has required more explanation or help on other things as well (which indicates they're not doing it on purpose and may need a little more patience).
Beyond that (since they're not breaking rules or otherwise being disruptive in ways that would involve admins or the community), that's all you can do, but direct communication usually helps a lot.
Alex, since you seem to be the only one on here besides Shane and Jon watching the current season, and since StarsandStreetForever is no longer welcome here, do you think you could make articles for the new Elmo's World episodes? You don't have to get screenshots, I just wanna have descriptions of each portion of the episode. Plus when you make the article for the Bubbles episode, add a section for the Happy Dance to note that there were bubbles all around for that part.
Do you think you could keep helping me out in making pages for the new EW episodes? HBO Go stopped working on my computer, and I don't wanna go back and forth between different computers to write down descriptions of the episodes. Shane apparently is uploading pictures for all the bits in the episodes, so you don't have to worry about that.
Sorry, Alex. I was only told by Edward, a.k.a Fozzieboba, to update those pictures. The Masked March 20 I uploaded has high quality. After all, high quality pictures are acceptable. The original was little to bright and fuzzy.
Your upgrades are fine (definitely improvements), you just made a mistake in file naming. You should upload them over the original file (thus updating on every page that uses the image), not upload a duplicate under a new name which is changed on one page only (thus what probably confused Alex).
Then what you need to do is ask an admin to unprotect the page. Also, that file was protected because of the user who asked you to change it. The images are definitely improvements, but I'd be very careful when making edits because a banned user asked you to.
I see that you reverted my edit. However, I also can 'make a case' for myself, since I have seen the notes which Gav (another Muppet Wiki user) posted online. While the sponsors are indeed listed as 'O', 'P', and '6,' the description of clips in the episode seem to indicate that '5' (and not '6') is the number illustrated in the episode. So, this is not totally based on my memory. Or are we supposed to treat the episode sponsors as 'final' (no matter what) until proven otherwise? Just wondering. Thanks.
Policy is to leave memory out of it (that's why we stress citing sources). If it's a mistake, we assess later, only if the CTW document shows every single segment and we're certain that it does (many for previous episodes have been lists of highlights). Otherwise, we go by print evidence. If you want to debate otherwise, feel free to bring it up on the forum (seeming contradictions are open to discussion), but don't try to use your memory or cite it in an edit summary. That's a red flag, and why other admins have told you not to rely on your memories.
Also, in such a discussion, be sure to link to the scan you were looking at (just noting that someone else posted it isn't enough). Nothing about 5 has been added to that article yet, so it's definitely not self-evident, and then it depends on exactly what the document shows.