Please add (even big) picture with short &/or concise names instead of gibberish-tittled small pics with poor quality (see Rules). This is not a joke nor it is negotiable.
u>Don't forget to write down the description of the added photos (of persons, places, things, events, ect.) while uploading so you won't lose your place within your filelist</u>. That always helps & it always works.
No edit-spamming, no picture-spamming & no category-spamming/category abuse allowed (see Rules). Please pay attention to simply keep track of how many edits above the limit of 3 or 5 edits (no more than that) on one page in one day @ a time by looking at & reading a page's history logs.
Right. The next time I catch you adding one of those tags, I'll give you some more direct motivation to stop, if you know what I mean. You're a good contributor but the fact you continue this blatantly anti-constructive behavior after having been very clearly warned against it sets me off.
Do you think Argus Filch's page should stay in this wiki? In the fifth book, he works for Dolores Umbridge as her enforcer. Unlike the Hogwarts staff, he is loyal to Umbridge because she allows him to torture misbehaving students like whipping them. Filch admits that Umbridge running the school was the best thing to happen in Hogwarts.
Even before, he is sadistic and domineering to the students and at one point begged Dumbledore to let him chain students to the ceiling for misbehaving.
Jeff, we've been over this before. The reason why I am being persistent in removing information like this is because so many people, including yourself in the past, have made wild statements (often without any proof), are unable to make up their minds, contradict themselves and fight with others about what kind of antagonist a character is. 161 different ways of defining what kind of antagonist Randall Boggs is is about 150 more than there should be.
Because people have been abusing the antagonistic scale as LucidPigeons calls it, I am doing what I can to put an end to the fighting and to reduce the amount of ridiculousness on this subject. It is not attempting to put a wiki at my mercy, nor a vengeance, nor a hatred. I have explained my reasons in blogs such as this one and no one has been able to present any rebuttle that shows how such rigid definitions benefit wikis. However, if you want to call my actions "persistence", "tenacious" or "doggedness", I'll accept that.
I'm glad to see you're helping out on this and I'd like to encourage you to go a step further. One of the other abuses I've seen is what I call "category spamming". That is when people spend a lot of their time only adding categories to pages. When it gets really bad, there are more categories on a page than there are words describing who the character is. Categories are necessary to help organize pages, but they shouldn't be used to replace descriptions on the page itself about who the character is, what their motivations are and what they do. So before you or anyone else clicks on the "Add Category" button, take a moment to think, "Do I really need to add this category so it will help organize the page or am I adding a category just to add a category" and "Can I put information on the page that will do the same job as this category?" Focus on adding to the page itself instead of the categories, please.
Alright, Meredith, it's time I got something clear to you.
This abuse of the antagonistic scale is... not productive, like what you've been fighting over recently on Amos Slade's page. At all. If you want to know what I'm talking about, it refers to when you get overly specific about a villain's/antagonist's role in the plot (any referral to the use of "quaternary antagonist" and below is pushing it, the sections of "plots/misinformation campaigns to hide the "true main villain" across every flippin' page for a cover-up antagonist whether it was warranted or not, and sections in the trivia like this that aren't needed in the least) and spread that across every other page to the point where it makes my eyes hurt. It's unnecessary, causing edit wars over it is unproductive, and multiple pages have been locked over the wars it's caused. I'd like to kindly ask you to stop with this because it's getting on the nerves of several users and I've had a user from another wiki entirely come over to try and make this stop. Causing edit wars over it specifically creates unneeded conflict, is very anti-productive and looks bad on the wiki as a whole.
Alright, Dreadnine! That's it! You want rid of Misinformation Campaigns, One-Line Articles, and Edit Wars, then you do it! I quit! If it's alright with everyone, I'm leaving this wiki. You know, I've tried and I've tried, there's just no respect for anyone with vision. Well, that's it. There's just nothing I can do about it. I'm going now, and I don't know when you'll see me again. Good day.
fine Jeff, quit.. taking a temper tantrum because you don't get things your way is fine and we do not particularly care.. you contribute to a wiki, you read and abide by the rules : if not, you get warned or blocked.
That is an important part of life itself, internet or not, so if you wish to leave because you can't deal with abiding by simple rules... good bye.
There's no need for that sort of language. I've been blocked before, and I won't let it happen again. This is my way of saying, "You can't fire me, I quit." I give up. I'm a terrible editor. Why do I bother you? I wouldn't use a page I'm not good at. Just for that, I'm unable to send another page. Don't forget me, okay? I won't forget you. :(