Hi, Fred. We've spoken to you about this before, but I don't think it was clear. Maintaining a wiki is tricky. Danny and I founded Muppet Wiki in December of 2005, and the community has worked hard to make it a respected source of information. Sometimes that means restoring pages to a previous version in the interest of consistency. We have a set of tools that allow for this to be done in an efficient manner, but unfortunately those methods sometimes seem "down and dirty." Please don't take it personally; you're not the only one being singled out by having an edit rolled back. You've made some good contributions here, but I want to make sure you're understanding the intent here.
I also don't understand how "respected source of Information" applies here. I didn't vandalize anything, all I did was attempt to update a logo. Again, I still don't understand why it was reverted. So I asked you, and I never got a response.
I think there is a huge misunderstanding here. I honestly don't think you realize what my issue is.
I don't care if an edit I make gets reverted, I am NOT taking it personally. I have no idea if you ever saw it, but I asked you (out of morbid curiosity) why it was reverted, more than a week went by, and you never responded, I replied that I didn't appreciate that, and then I was blocked. Why?
Hi, Fred! I know you're a huge Disney fan, but we don't have to have that same "putting it under the same ownership" passage every time. On occasion it's fine, but after awhile it becomes rather like saying "Bugs Bunny is owned by Warner Bros. which distributed Follow That Bird." Either people already know that or it's easily found out by just clicking the link, and it's just like we don't have to note it on every single Marvel character page. On the Lucas page, where it's written in more of a narrative sense, it works better, but on Star Wars, it's just awkward.
Frankly, looking around, we should take it off pages like The Incredible Hulk (where I'd missed or forgotten it was there), since we note the ownership on Marvel Comics. We don't note that for every ESPN sportscaster or current Disney-produced ABC show, and we shouldn't. One note on the main company page is sufficient, or in this case, since we don't have nor need a Lucasfilm page, on George Lucas. The note on Star Wars is mostly just because right now people are Googling the sale (and to clean-up a user who added it to the first sentence and implied Disney now owns the original movies, an issue which has not yet been clarified or decided; in fact a quick Google confirmed that Fox definitely still owns the first movie).
Yeah, I get it. I saw the huge edit summary, so I can take a "hint" ;) Yes, I realize that it works better on Lucas' page.
For the record, I was *not* the person who starting doing the "same ownership" thing. Some user a long time ago put the "same ownership" note on the Pixar article, and the only thing I did there was add Bear in the Big Blue House. So when it came to the Marvel pages, I followed suit.
While we're on the topic; I know for a fact that there are still MANY people out there who don't know that Disney owns Marvel. So just because "people already know that" doesn't mean that *everyone* does. Heck, just because info is well documented online, doesn't mean that people are always willing to look for it. ;) There will always be people who are not well-informed. But I digress.
As of this writing, I notice that you have not edited out the note on the Marvel characters pages, so feel free to, its no skin off my nose. I learned a long time ago that in a wiki, people will not always agree on how or what things should be documented. And I have also learned that just because something is a "rule" doesn't necessarily mean that it *needs* to be done the same way every time.
Hi, Fred! I never said you started it, just explaining that it's not always needed. Like I said, forget whether they know Disney owns Marvel (and I already said it's fine on that page). Look at the Bugs Bunny example I gave, it's just not something we need to do for *any* company in that fashion. I just wanted to give a polite explanation so you'd know in the future and because there's just so much room in the edit summaries. No offense intended.
...Oh, and I just wanted to say, me being a Disney fan (as you mentioned) had nothing to do with this. My edits were about connections. (I was noting the Muppets characters) But yes, after looking over things, its a little excessive (and in some cases awkward) to get into details. I just feel that if there is a connection to be made, it should be noted.
Hi Fred! Glad to see you're still adding to the Wiki. I think you could be of service on Talk:The Hollywood Walk of Fame; Julian left a message there questioning about the Sweetums puppet/costume they used (Looks like an alternate, to me).
Hello Fred. I had been writing this before I saw your most recent messages, but I still wanted to say a few things because I felt I had to. When I initially replied to your post on Scott's wall, I was reacting to the fact that you were really making a bigger deal out of the issue than it needed to be. As evidenced by Scott's recent revert and comment, it did seem that he was annoyed and probably in a rush. I agree that it was out of line, but maybe he couldn't think of a better explanation for reverting like Wendy did. None of us are perfect, you know. Not even admins.
In most of your recent comments referring to Scott, it seemed like you were attacking him verbally, especially in (even hypothetically) calling him "lazy" and "inconsiderate", and saying things like "who do you think you are?" To an administrator and co-founder? To me, that seems like the bigger crime than leaving a small comment like Scott's telling you to stop. Frustrated outbursts like that not only makes it worse for you and Scott, it makes it worse for everyone else here.
However, I'm happy that now you've come to more reasonable conclusions with Danny and Wendy. Perhaps leaving the Wiki for a time is called for, that is if you still feel uncomfortable working here right now. If you do leave, I'll await your return and hopefully Scott can patch things up with you. You are a great contributor, and a very loyal follower to the Wiki rules, but I just feel you were thinking about all this too hard.
Honestly, at the time it was more of a shock, knee-jerk reaction, I still don't appreciate the comment, It was not exactly how one wants to be addressed. And this is not the first time that Scott's actions have left me scratching my head.
But for the record, I do have to point out that with whatever I said, it all sounded worse that I was really feeling, I'm sure you know that it is very easy to sound "loud" and angry in text. Sometimes people just want to be heard. I am not a trouble maker.
And honestly, I would appreciate if I did not have to discuss this anymore with anyone. (Seriously) I don't want to give this anymore life.
Believe me, I have read what you have all said, I understand. Mistakes were made, lessons were learned.
I just want to put this behind me, and I don't want to hear about it anymore.
So please spread the word and if at all possible, please delete some of my previous comments on Scott's wall, most of the stuff was just rambling I would rather that it not stay around.
Just please let everyone know that I am sorry and regret that this happened.
Thanks for the words on this matter, I appreciate your thoughts. :)
I will still take a break from the wiki. All these "unwritten rules" of editing can be very disorienting.
Hi, Fred! Thanks for letting us know that they're going to do D23 again in 2013. I hope by then we have a new Muppet movie, or series, or something! I hope that I can also meet up with more Muppet fans next time. I only got to see a couple of wiki people in 2009 and 2011.
Sorry for the late response. Yeah, its all exciting stuff. I'm sure that there will be something Muppet-related going on. I think by now they realize how important and relevant the Muppets still are to people!
Hi Fred! You probably didn't notice this, but I see in some of your edits that spaces are being left under page sections. Of course, it's not your fault; it's some bug that seems to happen when you switch from the default visual editing mode to source mode. I discovered it a few days ago and brought it up a few days ago on Current Events. It's nothing major, but if you want to not have that happen anymore, I recommend unmarking the "Enable visual editor" option under "Editing" in your preferences. Just wanted to let you know ;)
Hey Fred! I just noticed that you haven't customized your avatar yet. You should, as it helps everyone in the community identify you. Just hover your mouse over the gray person next to your name on your profile and you'll get an Edit Avatar link. Then just choose a picture from your hard drive, and you're done!
Heh, you undid Buddy at the same time I did. Basically, as you can see, it's because it's not really relevant to the info box and we cover far too many movies (especially all those PG-13 to R movies where the relevance is just some Creature Shop effects or props) to do it every time (and then it gets into near semantics, like for all the G ratings, where we might as well say "G for everyone" or even cases where no rating was applied or added later for video, etc). I wondered why you did that, and then thought to check The Muppets (2011), so now I see why. I see there's an explanation there, but that's an exception because there was uncertainty about the rating and it's still new out (so people would be more apt to think "Why is the new Muppet movie not G?" than they would to wonder about The Witches or anything). Personally though, I think it would be better to discuss the rating in the text, but that's something we can tackle on the article's talk page later (the page is still more of a work in progress, after all).
Plus of course those rating explanations have become more detailed over time (for the original release of Labyrinth, the best I can find is "thematic content," as opposed to "scary scenes, some sexual implications or subtext, infant in peril, and David Bowie in suggestive tights"). In general, the reasonings of the MPAA are outside our ken and focus anyway. Not that you needed the explanation, but here you go anyway!
Yeah, incidentally, I couldn't find a "reason" for Labyrinth's PG rating anywhere. But yeah, its a little off the point, and a case of me just trying to over-correct. There is also an explanation for It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie should that one stay, since its Muppet movie? (Similar to the new film's situation.)
Hi, guys! Just because I'm kind of a geek about ratings and stuff like that, I wanted to mention that the MPAA didn't really give out official reasons for ratings until a few years ago, when they made them part of the rating box on movie posters and the back of video boxes. Sometimes you'll see a retroactive one on an older movie, but Labyrinth didn't have one in 1986. I think it came about because of people not realizing that not all ratings mean the same thing. For example, The Passion of the Christ and American Pie are both rated R, but for obviously different reasons. So I think people were asking for a more detailed explanation, which led to the additional line of text in the rating box. I just checked the latest DVD and Blu-Ray of Labyrinth, and they don't have one.
Thanks for weighing in, Ken! I thought that might have been the case (and of course we often see it added retroactively on movies that had no rating at all when released, but with no explanation). That's one of the reasons I really don't like including that in the infobox (that and the sheer number of Creature Shop or effects entries, since to start doing it on a few at random, we'd need to be consistent) but for the new film, it's an exception worth making at least until it's no longer current/news, and it's a major Muppet production as well (compared to Honey which is prop/effects, and Rat and Buddy which we cover in more detail but are still Henson/Creature Shop projects so varying ratings for those aren't a surprise).
For It's a Very Merry..., it wasn't even released theatrically, the rating was added to the DVD packaging as we note, so in my opinion it shouldn't be there at all but noted in the section on DVD release.
Please don't undo my edits. I know you're trying to help, but I've been doing this for six years. I know what I'm doing. If you have a question, you can ask on my message wall or the article's talk page. Thanks.