To remind you, please do not change voice identifications unless you have a source to back it up. If you think it's another person, it's best to start a discussion first.
I've noticed that Andrew has already reminded you about this several times, and while you've at least been active in discussions, you're still changing based on what you think is correct, which usually does not reflect the group consensus. In any case, this will be your last warning on the matter. If you continue to make similar edits, you will be blocked.
Hi! A couple of points. First, categories and discussion. You made changes to how pages are categorized and to categories themselves like Category:Sesame Street Book Series. Since the individual titles are in the Sesame books category for some non-volume series (and for others, we just used the master page, which linked to each one), we never used it as a subcat, and also for better navigation (likewise, why pages like Category:Elmo Books and so on aren't categorized that way). We connected them with see also a long time ago.
However, it's been so long that making a change could make sense. But remember what we told you: new categories, major category changes, anything affecting a current definition needs to be discussed *first*. Otherwise people will be confused. In this case, the changes make some sense to me but need to be consistent, actual category definitions would be changed (adding the categories without fixing that adds confusion), other pages may need to be cleaned up as a result, and basically everyone needs to be on the same page. Feel free to start a discussion about it. In this case, it can probably be resolved fairly easily, but it has to be something that's understood and agreed to by the community. Thanks!
Second, a more serious concern. Recent edit summaries like "I'm doing it anyway" are against the spirit of cooperation in a Wiki. We like to have evidence for things (just as you've raised questions on voice identifications because they sound different to you, we can't say a character debuted in a certain season because you *think* it looks like it did; that's why we use ekas and so on.) That's a fairly major concern and we've warned you about this before, so please be very careful. As is, Jonathan had to lock Cluckitis (edit warring, again based on an assumption you made.) We've tried to explain things to you but as of now, it really has gone beyond three strikes. (I had to consider whether to block you when you left that summary, but decided to wait). We appreciate your enthusiasm, but you really have to understand what working on a Wiki is: it's a collaboration, not a personal blog or website, and Muppet Wiki is *encyclopedic* (meaning we can't include personal guesses or assumptions; if anything's in doubt, we bring it up for discussion). You have made some good edits, so that's the reason for this final warning (since you're still tending to revert and ignore edit summaries left by other editors, including administrators). Please respond.
And you're reverting admins *again*. Clearly you have issues with voice identifications, but if you strongly disagree with others' ears, start a discussion before making changes. At this point, I'm not sure you're really getting the message. We've tried to be patient and friendly with you, but you have to show a willingness to actually work with us. After more than half a dozen messages from us to you, we really haven't seen that.
I hate to sound harsh, but if voice idenifications bother you so much, I'd suggest you just stay away from that area entirely if you're not willing to really discuss the issues first and listen to what other users present in argument. Otherwise, well, you really have exhausted all your warnings and we would have to block you. (The fact that you're at least leaving summaries is one reason I've been reluctant to do so, but it hasn't really helped.)
We've said that audio evidence counts as a source if there's a consensus, but you seem to have trouble with that (in this case, bringing up an entirely random theory). It feels like the best way for you to contribute is to just stay away from that area entirely and find something else to work on. Because otherwise you've proved rather uncooperative (and in this case, choosing to revert multiple times even after an explanation rather than open a discussion) and this seems to be your biggest sore spot.
Is there another area you're really interested in? Find something constructive to do (and again, if you really disagree with anything, *ask* in a discussion first, and never undo again after an explanation; that's why Cluckitis was protected, because you keep returning to your original changes regardless of what the admins tell you). Frankly, edit warring of that kind isn't tolerated even if it isn't an administrator, but most of your behavior has involved them.
There's lots of gaps still on the Wiki. I suggest finding something you're enthusiastic about and *add* information (and not theories ala Roger Miller) instead of taking things out. Thanks!
I understand, now. I admit I'm not familiar with counting audio as a source to performer identification, but if it was decided between the administrators, I won't argue about it anymore. And I should have remembered that assuming/guessing a reference to anything in particular without any further evidence won't make your information eligible. Though I stand by my belief, I will take your advise and instead post questions on the forums instead of posting the note publicly, I hope that sounds better.
To repeat what Scott said below, on June 26: "Do not remove or change content unless you have a source. If you're questioning the validity of unsourced content on an article, open a discussion on the forum or ask the editor who added the information." We've explained about consensus multiple times on this very page. None of this is new. So please understand and accept *consensus* (meaning the majority agrees; not that every person, including you or I, will, and we told you to open discussions or communicate with the editors *directly*, which means on their walls, instead of removing or changing anything). That's not our suddenly being stricter, it's repeating what we've told you since you joined.
And by the way, I must confess, this kind of relates to an attitude problem I've had since I was in high school, when I'd skimp on classwork or start arguments with other students, I was spoken to by the teachers, it happened all the way to near my senior year, and they clearly grew tired of having to discuss the same behavior problem over and over. And sadly, I actually began to enjoy discussing problems like that it continuously, but it is obvious that nobody else did, and I was lucky I didn't have a job yet, because this attitude would easily lead to getting fired, I have started improving since then. I hope this confession doesn't make the situation worse in any way.
On the contrary, we appreciate you being upfront about it. But please understand that there are guidelines we expect everyone to follow. When in doubt, ask an admin or open up a discussion on the forum.
By the way, it would be helpful if you added your first name to your profile so that we know what to call you when we're having a conversation. I'm Scott, as noted in the header of my profile.
Hi! I can tell you're annoyed right now, but please understand how consensus works. On a Wiki, that means waiting for others to agree on a dispute, *not* making a change and then saying "I hope they do." (It's different if the change hasn't already been discussed and reverted.) It's also best not to leave argumentative summaries like "He does not!" In this case, three users disagreed with you (all admins) and there was an older thread explaining the reason. So it's clear that right now, there isn't a majority agreement with you. In which case, sometimes (especially if people stop replying, since we'd already given our thoughts) it's best to just let it alone.
It can be frustrating, and we've all been through it. But part of a community collaboration means sometimes not everyone agrees with you, and if a majority disagrees, then you can try to persuade them otherwise, but changing something back because you don't like what everyone else says isn't the best thing to do. So even if other users agree to the change this time, please keep this in mind for the future. And if they don't, find something else to work on (and who knows, definitive evidence may even surface in a year or so, who knows; on a Wiki, few things are permanent.)
RightFielder, you've just left a message asking me to unlock the protection on Danger, despite two admins trying to work with you on a concerning issue. By ignoring them, and going behind their backs, you're not exactly instilling us with the feeling that you're interested in working with a community on building this project with us.
Rightfielder, I'm becoming more concerned about your interaction with the community here. Your bold removal and changing of content on a number of articles, and the edit summaries you've been leaving, are not conducive to a healthy relationship with the those working on the Muppet Wiki project.
Do not remove or change content unless you have a source. If you're questioning the validity of unsourced content on an article, open a discussion on the forum or ask the editor who added the information.
Also, Andrew specifically asked you not to remove other people's comments from discussions, and then you went ahead and removed my comments from the very same discussion. That is no bueno, my friend. If we don't see some improvement on your end, I'm afraid you won't be welcome here anymore.
Please respond so that we know you understand what has been discussed here.
I am very sorry, about the article "Waitin' at the Bus Stop Sign", and I'm sorry for removing another comment, though I forget which discussion it was in. --RightFielder (talk) 21:27, June 26, 2014 (UTC)
Hi. There's an archived discussion on Talk:Big Jeffy as to why those notes were added. We don't use talk pages anymore, so if you want to make an argument against that, you can start a new discussion on the forum. Thanks!
Hi. We've never used categories (or lists, for that matter) to arrange season premieres and finales, and to be honest, I don't see why it would be necessary. Our common policy for categories is to discuss before creating; so next time, if you feel a new category should be created, feel free to bring it up on the forum so other users can get involved. On a similar note, don't revert edits by an administrator. Again, if you disagree, discuss with the editor in question rather than reverting it back. Thanks.