I was looking at this Wiki's This Is Your Life, Donald Duck (comic) page and noticed that you were the creator of it, if I'm not mistaken. I took a peek at your contribution history (I hope you don't mind) and see that you seem to be interested in and knowledgeable about the Donald Duck universe. Because of this, I would like to invite you to check out and contribute to the Scrooge McDuck Wiki if you would like to. This Wiki is fully dedicated to covering Donald Duck comics, cartoons, books, etc. I think you'll like it, though I can understand if it's not your cup of tea. I'm not in any sort of position of authority there, but I am a semi-active contributor and would love to see you there, too.
I'm not at all trying to recommend or suggest that you stop editing the Disney Wiki, nor am I trying to pry your attention away from a site you must love, seeing as how you have over 1000 edits on here. I just simply want to invite you to check the Scrooge McDuck Wiki, see what you think, and maybe think about contributing as much as you'd like. If you're as passionate about the Duck comics as you seem to be, I think you'll like it, even if you never contribute to it.
At any rate, let me wish you a Merry late Christmas and a Happy New Year! I may not know, but you do seem like a kind individual, and I hope you've had a swell holiday season this year. I hope this message does not come across as annoying, self-promoting, assuming, or overly-assertive. I only wish to inform a fellow Duck fan about what I personally view as a great Wiki, and I hope I have not offended you in the meanwhile.
Hello. Thanks for the invitation. Yes, I love Duck comics. I've been reading some stories by Carl Barks and Don Rosa, and also some by other authors. I've seen a bit of the Scrooge Wiki, not much yet. Your invitation was thoughtful, I'm impressed. You don't have to worry about anything. :)
It's nice to have an in-depth wiki for Duck comics. Apparently Scrooge Wiki accepts pages for minor characters who have appeared in only one story, and other pages like "Daisy Duck (Donaldless Continuum)" (a version of Daisy from an alternate timeline), which I guess would not always be exactly possible on Disney Wiki as separate pages like that.
Maybe I can help at least with information about some Duck comics published here in Brazil (my country), which may have not been published in other countries.
I guess maybe all Mouse comics would also be accepted on Scrooge Wiki, since that wiki says "We are an unofficial project to cover the entire Disney comics universe", but the focus seems to be on Duck comics nonetheless. At least that's my initial impression, I could be mistaken.
I have created the Fulton Gearloose page on Disney Wiki a few weeks ago. For now, as a small gesture, I started by adding a bit of info in the "Fulton Gearloose" page in Scrooge Wiki as well.
I'm glad you're not offended or insluted by my invitation. I was hoping it wouldn't come across as too assertive or anti-Disney Wiki.
Yes, Mouse comics are fair game for the Scrooge McDuck Wiki. Duck/Mouse shorts, storybooks, comics, movies, television shows, etc., are all allowed, though I think the primary focus is the Duck comics. Also, yes, the Scrooge McDuck Wiki does indeed allow for pages for more minor characters and alternate versions of characters that probably wouldn't be allowed here on the Disney Wiki.
I'm happy to see you've made an edit over there. I hope you edit more if you want to. I don't think we have too many pages on Brazilian comics currently, but you're more than welcome to add some.
Happy New Year to you, too, and thank you for your kind and friendly response.
If you don't want me to get cross with you again, start editing smarter not harder. Do all your edits in one go and don't publish until you're absolutely sure you have finished. Better yet, use a sandbox to do your edits before publishing them onto the actual page.
Few of the logos you put up were not different at all and didn't have any. The only difference was audio alone, which does not suffice. I designed the new layout to display both pictures and description like with the Disney Junior and Wand ID pages. Only put up logos that are actually visually different. And I MEAN different.
I put up the edits you made in your sandbox because I was inserting the latest one for Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, which you accidentally removed, and I thought why not include yours at the same time.
Thank you for putting my edits there. That's alright. I plan to keep editing my logo sandbox. If the opportunity arises again in the future, feel free to add my edits in the main page again if you want.
I had not noticed yet that the pages Disney Junior and Wand ID had those lists of logos. OK, I understand.
Sorry for accidentally removing Maleficent: Mistress of Evil that time. I didn't mean to remove it.
OK, I'll remember to put only visually different logos there. I also removed those logos from my sandbox.
That said, I think the page should list sound variations. I find them interesting. In my opinion, the list looks incomplete without them. I wonder if that rule could be changed by discussion / consensus or something like Wikipedia does.
Anyway I'll do as you said. I'll use my sandbox to keep working on visually different logos.
I hope you're not uploading more just so you can create a separate gallery. I don't like how you're approaching this. Uploading more pictures to the point of them being too many is a bad a sign from my point of view. This is a Wiki, not a gallery site. Our top priority is information.
No, I think these are legitimate logos. I apologize if any of these logos aren't up to standard. I see you deleted a few logos I had uploaded. That's fine by me. I hope most logos can be kept.
I don't want to create any pointless galleries. I have no interest in uploading images just to have a gallery.
To be clear, I'm not particularly interested in either case, having or not having a gallery. Whatever location for these images is fine by me.
I think there are quite a few movies (and other media) with interesting logo variations that deserve to be shown and also described by text. I tried to upload only legitimate images, to the best of my knowledge.
In case you are interested, at that point when I created a separate gallery, I was already planning to upload a number of logos and expand the text (I already did both things since then).
I knew that adding text and images would make the page larger, so I preemptively added the gallery for that reason. In hindsight, I think my reasoning was a mistake. I probably shouldn't have created the gallery at that point.
I think you've done enough on that page. The problem is over editing, and I'm not lifting the block or letting you continue anytime soon. One user in particular got blocked for over editing sound effect pages. Furthermore your ongoing editing upsets the editing history of that page.
Doing nothing but image uploading leads to trouble. In time it becomes an obsession. You forget what you're supposed to be doing on a wiki. According to your history, uploading and edit galleries is all you've ever done. There is no record of you editing or expanding written contents. I don't like that at all.
Added "El Gayo José Francisco Alisandro de Lima y de la Loma Pancho Alegre" (full name found in an obscure comic) in the trivia section of Panchito Pistoles.
Various minor edits.
I get that my ongoing editing upsets the editing history of that page as you said. It's true, I apologize about this. I should have done all the changes first as a text page on my PC and then edited the wiki pages only once.
That said, there's another issue where I think we are not on the same page.
From what you say, apparently there's a problem with editing only galleries or sound effects. Personally, I don't see that problem. Maybe it's something that I don't get yet, and could understand in the future.
I see that the top priority is information, that seems perfectly true. Even if Disney Wiki somehow had no images, the information would still have great value.
To repeat, I did some work besides editing galleries (as shown above). But if someone appeared and said "Hey, I'd like to only edit galleries and do nothing else on Disney Wiki, would that be OK?" I'm not sure what would be the problem.
A few non gallery edits isn't good enough. You've one more gallery editing and a few non gallery edits makes no difference.
You're heavy gallery editing and less article editing makes you another Valyrian Wildfire and Jackson.carroll2.
The number of edits from a user on an article should be no more the 1 or 2 publishes, depending on the numbers errors. Instead you create a month of edits on one page, that it almost impossible to read other user's editing history. You should be editing it one go or using a sandbox before publishing.
I haven't been much active in the wiki. Overall I didn't do much text editing or gallery editing.
Still, I'm pretty sure I contributed more by editing text than galleries. (though I'm not sure how to compare exactly)
I listed some of my text edits because you had said that uploading and edit galleries is all I've ever done.
Walt Disney Pictures logo was the one time where I uploaded dozens of images, which were logo variations illustrating the text above.
Still, I think these logos were legitimate images. I didn't just upload them, I merged and edited practically the whole text of two pages about the logos in the process.
In my opinion, it's reasonable to have a gallery with one logo for each movie where visible variations exist, and I also think these logos deserve text descriptions in the list of movie variations. (some text descriptions are already in place, others may be added in the future)
How many times have I uploaded images before that? Usually I uploaded a few images to illustrate the articles I created above.
I don't know these users very well (Valyrian Wildfire and Jackson.carroll2). I see one of them was blocked for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment". Apparently that person has also been uploading fanart, which I know is against the rules.
I apologize again for my ongoing editing upsetting the edit history of that page as you said.
These are your words below. I understand and will follow this in the future:
"The number of edits from a user on an article should be no more the 1 or 2 publishes, depending on the numbers errors. Instead you create a month of edits on one page, that it almost impossible to read other user's editing history. You should be editing it one go or using a sandbox before publishing."
I've apologized (twice) and said I'll be complying about the editing history issue. That seems one big problem which I'd like to avoid. You are right about that.
When you tell me "You're still not getting the point." I assume you are talking about this point, because it was the last thing we talked about here.
I guess this discussion got a bit long because there were quite a lot of other points raised around here.
I think some of the points raised are misunderstandings, which I talked about above. Like when you said I've never edited or expanded written contents, or that I've done more gallery editing than text editing. Don't take this the wrong way, but I had a problem with those remarks. I think maybe you didn't pay much attention to my edit history at the time, because these points don't seem to actually apply to my work around here. So I've wanted to clarify that.
You don't seem to want to talk anymore, so I wish you the best. But feel free to reply and continue this conversation if you want.
I'll remember about not editing the same article so many times, like you said. Again, you are right.