User talk:Antsamthompson9 | Muppet Wiki

Welcome

Hi, welcome to Muppet Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the User:Antsamthompson9 page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- H rytter (Talk) 18:59, 6 April 2010

Context and Edit Summaries

Hi, Anthony! Just a reminder, read edit summaries before you redo something which an admin has changed (ala Rob Tygner). Not every "puppet coordinator" credit, especially for Creature Shop stuff which works differently and more often involves body movement or pantomime stuff for suit performers, falls with what's defined on Puppet captain. Please check context (I'd had to unlink some of yours in connections, because that's not how we handle those, and "puppet consultant," even though Kevin Clash once had "Senior Muppet Consultant" as a variation of his Puppet Captain credit, often means "consulted on Muppets.") Check the production context and the actual definitions used on the article before you link a phrase just through Googling (plus a lot of those "puppet coordinator" phrases on Creature Shop performer articles aren't even in credits, just added by performers as a way to elaborate on their duties, so outside of correspondence there's no way to even interpret those fully).

Also, advance reminder. Place names likewise need to be contextualized. I'm planning an article on Nashville the location at some point, but that does not mean every reference to the TV show Nashville should be linked (just if it's about an actual event there). Thanks! -- Andrew 18:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

"first" in the song box

Hey man, regarding [1] and [2], I can't remember where we talked about the rules for when to use that and when not to. —Scott (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

If a song originated in a street story, I don't think a "First" should go in the song box. —Anthony (talk 23:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant where was it that we talked about the rules for when to use that and when not to. —Scott

(talk) 00:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Ant, are you removing firsts from songboxes because we discussed it somewhere as a policy (which I can't recall either), or are you doing it at your own preference? If it's the latter, then why? — Jon

(talk) 00:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That might been me setting precedent for myself. If we want to have a bigger discussion about it, I'm down. - Shane

(talk) 03:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I'll open up a forum thread about it. I just couldn't rememeber where we decided how we wanted that field to work.

By the way, Anthony, thanks for fixing my atrocious spelling lately. Spell check hasn't been working in Firefox for some reason. —Scott

(talk) 13:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Ant, please wait until we've come to a consensus about this on the forum before making similar changes. — Jon (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There's one right here. It could definitely use more discussion. —Scott

(talk) 13:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

i.e. vs e.g.

Hey man, thanks for all the i.e. vs e.g. fixes. I think a lot of those were me —Scott (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Do you think you could change the link to Production order vs. Broadcast order page on the Muppet show episode category page to the List of The Muppet Show episodes page? Since all the info for that migrated over there. User:Antsamthompson9 22:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I added the link when I migrated the info. —Scott

(talk) 00:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It just seems odd that Category:Muppet Show Episodes links to the Production order vs. Broadcast order page when all the info can be found another page. User:Antsamthompson9 05:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, why didn't you say so? I just updated the link. Also, don't forget to sign your talk page posts with four tildes, just like it says in red at the top of the talk page edit form. Thanks! —Scott

(talk) 12:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

removing sources

Why did you unlink hundreds of sources pointing to a forum thread? —Scott (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew said that all the links to threads have become redlinks after the move to UPC and it fills up Special:WantedPages. So I thought I would help him by getting rid of those links so, it'd be easier for him and anyone else who wants to make pages for redlinks. —Anthony 10:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Where was this? —Scott

(talk) 10:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Forum:Bug smashing efforts —Anthony 10:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

We were reporting that as a bug. Meaning, it should be left alone so it came be fixed properly. I appreciate the attempt at clean-up, but it lessened the quality of the source cited and created an awful lot of counter clean-up. Please don't embark on sweeping changes like that without discussing it with the community first. —Scott

(talk) 10:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Tonight Show links

Hey man, nice job with the Tonight Show links. I was going tackle them today as it got late for me last night. So, thanks! —Scott (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure. —Anthony 21:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Segment pages

I just wanted to say thank you for all those links you've added to the SS segment pages recently; I know it couldn't have been easy. -- Tony (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Indented paragraphs

Your latest change doesn't look right.

https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/The_Muppet_Christmas_Carol?diff=next&oldid=1415522

I couldn't figure it out either. Compare mobile view and desktop view.

Also, images are placed with the paragraph they refer to. It may look okay in desktop view, but not in mobile view. Images should also be indented with the indented (bulleted) paragraph they belong to; this doesn't matter in desktop mode, but it displays wrongly as a new separate "paragraph" (not indented and not bulleted) in mobile view.

There's a better way to do this; we'll have to figure it out... Cotswold (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Cotswold, please don't indent galleries. As Ant noted, it's not the proper formatting. Part of the problem you're seeing may stem from the fact that you're editing on mobile. Unfortunately, that layout doesn't work very well; we advise that you direct your mobile browser to request the desktop version of the page. —Scott

(talk) 11:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scarecroe, That's not a solution, to say don't look at the mobile site.

And the issue Ant and I are discussing is not galleries (I assume you mean a set of images?). The issue is paragraphing; text or whatever. When delineating subsections by bulleting (something that occurs frequently on muppet.fandom I notice) and a section has multiple paragraphs, all paragraphs after the first one are un-bulleted. Bulleting indents. A new paragraph outdents. This applies to both desktop and mobile view. I'm sure there's a way to solve it. If you know how, please tell us.

Using : to indent manually does work, but the indent is not by the same amount as * gives.

Cotswold (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Going live

Hi, Ant, I know you're always eager to take things out of upcoming, but remember, that 1) streaming things on HBO Max don't go live until at earliest midnight *Pacific* time generally but there's also sometimes delays and 2) Disney+ doesn't actually add things even at midnight (usually a gap of several hours, as confirmed by users repeatedly staying up trying to catch a new addition). Even the recent changes show it's not November 25th PT yet. So it generally works best not to change the pages until you've confirmed it's actually there on the site. Please keep this in mind in the future (if you're worried, don't worry, it will get updated in time). You do so much good work, but it's honestly better to wait than to say something has aired or is online when it hasn't. It's not like when merchandise goes on sale. Thanks! -- Andrew 05:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Voices and edit warring

Hi, Ant. As we've said before, we appreciate all you do, but you periodically forget about Muppet Wiki:Communication (after a page has been unprotected due to edit warring, reinserting an edit is *still* edit warring) and the basic rule of talking to admins. I brought this up back in October and November messages above. Also, re-read Muppet Wiki:Sources. However much we trust them, copying a change made and removed by another editor is not a source. You reinstated a claim added in January and later removed due to edit warring with the same user involved in the Stephanie D'Abruzzo characters issue, and if you looked through the history to confirm that Tony added the cat claim, you should have also seen this edit summary. To repeat what I typed there, "no credits or script to confirm who's who, but those with more distinct speaking parts beyond sounds or one words might be readded later by an established user or with discussion." It's incredibly difficult and not always wise to try to ID when characters just yell in a crowd or utter animal sounds. (In this case, meaning an established user directly making the case, not someone readding because an established user wrote it months ago). You didn't even ask Tony about it (which again is a reason for forums; it's also possible he had sources beyond his ear, which would need to be cited). You ignored Jon's message before protecting the page that a citable source or at least a voice comparison would be needed to re-add the info. This goes down to a very old statement in our FAQ, Why was my edit removed?, stating to leave a message for the editor and not to engage in edit warring. For voices specifically, the procedure is already outlined on Muppet Wiki:Identifying Voices that we avoid guesses and ask for consensus when unsure, and this especially applies to single lines, words, or animal sounds.

You do great work, Ant, but you still need to work on proper communication and using forums correctly (to get consensus or ask for more info, not to let personal preferences or opinions on an admin's revert get in the way). This is said with appreciation for your value as an editor, but please avoid falling into the same traps as users we have to protect pages against and end up blocking for non communication. Basically, don't let your enthusiasm or getting caught in a moment let you forget the way Muppet Wiki handles things or edit in a way that ignores actions by admins. Communicate first on user pages or forums, and only then if others agree with you or accept your direct sources (not because another user thought so), can you reinsert. Thank you! (And yes, we need a reply so we know you understand). -- Andrew 16:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

For the EW info, I was using a YouTube copy of the segment here

(YouTube)

, and Vogel does have dialogue as the turtle. ("Come back here, rabbit!") The cat and dog sing along with Elmo at the beginning of the "Pets" song, before the rest of the crowd joins in, so their performers are easier to sort out. Joey can be heard as the parrot at the very beginning of the segment, comparing it to other performances he's done such as in Episode 3839 and Episode 3582. -- Tony (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I promise to be more careful when it comes to things like this. Now that Tony has explained his source for the performers in EW: Pets, can the note about additional performers be added back to the page? -- Anthony 00:05, 17, April 2022 (UTC)

No. Re-read my message and re-read Muppet Wiki:Identifying Voices and the messages Jon and I left in edit summaries. It needs a *consensus*. To get that, you need a forum discussion, time for others to listen (Tony didn't give an actual source, just his opinion, which may be correct but others need) and the fact that the whole area of animal voices for that episode has been attracting edit wars. In part from dealing with this as well as my own work and home responsibilities, I haven't even had time to listen to determine how clearly the cat and dog singing shows specific performers. We've had similar discussions and concerns when people tried to pick out unclear background vocals or say definitively that a throwaway woof was Jerry Nelson. It might be simpler this time, but it still has to be an actual discussion on a forum and not just editor's opinions or statements on my talk page It would honestly be best if Tony started the thread (as you're just backing what he's typing). If enough other editors agree and there's a clear consensus, *then* it can be re-added. With that consensus, it would honestly be better if Tony or another user adds it, to avoid jumping the gun and given the edit warring you've already engaged in. Otherwise we'll just have to protect the page again until there's a forum consensus. -- Andrew

01:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. -- Tony (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I started a thread for it: Forum:Identifying voices for performer pages. -- Tony (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Episode 0862

Hello, Anthony:

As far as I know, the rules for what makes an episode 'complete' (and thus 'EG' instead of 'EG|20') is that all segments in the episode have to have an image associated with them. Episode 0862 still has one segment without an image. Hope this helps. Thanks. Jon(talk) 07:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Sesame guide reminders

Hi! Please take a look at Forum:Sesame Street Episode Guide reminders when you get the chance.
Thanks! —Scott (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi again! Just wanted you to be aware that this notice has been updated with multiple new reminders. Please be sure to keep this handy as a reference guide as it's likely this will be updated again as we continue this process. Thanks! —Scott

(talk) 20:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

noimage and noimage-big

Hi Ant. Just curious how you make the decision to use noimage.png versus noimage-big.png for galleries. See here and here. —Scott (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

When I type noimage into my browser, noimagebig is the one that comes up. But if the simple noimage is already in the section I'm editing, I'll just copy and paste that. Since the images would be filled in anyway, I didn't think it mattered if they were inconsistent. Do you want me to just pick one and stick with it? —Anthony (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

For galleries, noimage-big.png is preferred. Thanks! —Scott

(talk) 00:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Season 52 Muppets

Hi, Anthony! Thanks for augmenting my list of this season's Muppets; I had totally forgotten about the characters appearing in newly recorded tags for repeat episodes and accidentally ignored Cookie's Mommy in the most recent offering. What is your opinion: Should we also add Grouches for the one random Grouch who appears in the band in Episode 5207? I think there's a precedent for doing that with groups like Grouches, Martians, Honkers, and Dingers, even if only one has appeared, but I'm not sure. -- Lee 11:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. -- Anthony 00:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Sesame Kids

Hiya! Thanks for adding to the kids' filmographies (Sally, Troy, etc). When you do, can you please add some context as with the other entries? Thanks! —Scott (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

disambigs

FYSA, I reverted the link changes you made going to The Muppets redirect. We've talked about this before, but not every change on the wiki needs a blanket response. Some of those link changes didn't really make sense, so let's take a breather and figure out the best course of action before moving forward on undiscussed mass edits. As always, the Muppet Wiki:Admins are accessible and Forum:Index is available for use if there's something you're not sure about. Thanks, we appreciate it. —Scott (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Language Song

Doyou have footage for language song, I need to make screencaps

Sources

Hi Ant. This is a reminder that when you're citing a source, you need to cite it *in the article.* Andrew previously talked to you about this in 2013, and you've been doing good at that for while, but there's been a few recent instances where you've just pasted the link in your edit summary ([3]). It's more important that your citation is visible on the page so readers can see that the information it points to is correct. We'd appreciate it if you could be more consistent about adding in-text citations. Thanks. — Jon (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Context again

Anthony, please google titles or read the article carefully before linking, rather than googling every use of a phrase and linking regardless. Don Juan de Marco is not a version of the Don Juan play and basically just an allusion in the title/plot element. If you're not sure, please ask on the forum. You do a lot of good work but periodically we have to revert because you can't tell if something is actually related to a new page or not. Please remember this, and please respond here as you haven't replied to the last several admin reminders. I'll repeat what Scott said further up: "As always, the Muppet Wiki:Admins are accessible and Forum:Index is available for use if there's something you're not sure about." Thanks. -- Andrew 04:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I Googled Don Juan deMarco, and I figured that since the plot is about a man who thinks he's Dan Juan, the linking was appropriate, but point taken. I'll ask you about things that I think should be linked from now on. -- Anthony 06:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

An allusion or minor plot element (the movie is really about mental illness in Mexico) isn't the same thing, especially if you looked at the Don Juan page as written (and asked if the omission could have been by design) and into the movie more carefully. We love what you do, Ant, but you link eagerly and as previous messages show, not always appropriately, in many cases because you don't know why a link was changed and just want to adjust (as with The Muppets link changes, or if you'd talked with Scott about why redlinks were being removed, he could have told you the episode titles in navigation should still keep the format so when relinked, users don't create incorrect pages). You've reverted with edit summary text but without actually editing the page to source and explain why to readers and the citation issue was brought up just recently. And I know I've asked you before to be very careful when linking a standalone word or part of a title, as most of the time at best it's not helpful and at worst it's incorrect. It's been a periodic issue for some time now.

It's really about communication, which as the last few messages show, you've let lapse. Even an "Is this an appropriate link?" in an edit summary is a good way to communicate uncertainty. You save a lot of work for us when you change links correctly, but create more when you do so just because you saw a page was created or moved. We love the value you've contributed, but please work with us more. Talk to us. That's how a Wiki functions best and avoids counterproductive editing. Thank you, and please respond. -- Andrew

17:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise dates

Anthony, please read Muppet Wiki:Style Guide#Merchandise. Any dates added to older merchandise need to be discussed first, since Amazon listings aren't sufficient. In general though, per the above, a deliberate decision was made not to track those dates for reasons detailed on that page. Please respond here and don't make any more changes without forum discussion *and* solid evidence. -- Andrew 01:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I'll only add dates to pages that are sourced in places that are not just Amazon. -- Anthony 04:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Commonplace words

Hi, Anthony! You've continued to be helpful in correcting links and punctuation errors and such, saving us a lot of time. However, as has been noted above, some links depend on text, especially when it's not a name or exact title but a common word. Words that crop up on thousands of pages in casual mentions don't need to be linked every time they occur in a Google search. Before we revise Sandbox:Cookies to become a live page, we wanted to give you some guidelines.

Think of it the way frogs and pigs are linked. We link them when dealing with the Muppet characters, as groups or individuals of the species, but not every time Kermit says he's a frog or someone calls Miss Piggy “the pig” etc., as it wouldn't be useful and usually mean every appearance. This goes for cookies since they define Cookie Monster. It should be linked on his page, “C is for Cookie” as his first major song about cookies, pages for cookies as characters or referring to groups of Muppet cookies in background, and licensing/merchandise for actual cookies, cookie jars, and other cooking/baking merchandise. For all other songs, episodes (including inserts and sketch pages), books and toys, etc., it will depend on context and prominence, so please leave that up to admins to determine (in some cases we may still be deciding!)

The basic idea will apply to whenever an everyday word becomes an article, but we'll remind you and be specific as needed. Thanks, and we do appreciate the work you do! -- Andrew 23:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Stubs

Hi, Anthony! Another reminder, please don't link a page that's been created without checking the page first. If it's a one-line stub that repeats info on pages, it will be deleted and we'll have to undo all of your linking edits. As always, we appreciate your help, but please respond so we know you understand, and keep this in mind in future. Thanks! -- Andrew 06:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Hopefully someone will make acceptable pages for those characters soon, because we're bound to see more of them. -- Anthony 10:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Ant! Also, you've been a lot better about context, but as per here, please check each title first and see if it's actually an adaptation of the work it links to. Thanks again! -- Andrew

23:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

And please pause on linking Faerie Tale Theatre except on actor pages. Most of those will be relocated. See my edit summary when I created the page. Thanks! -- Andrew

02:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Jack Frost

Hi, Ant. Please hold off on all Jack Frost links too. I made a naming convention error when moving, which I'd hoped to fix before you started changing links. It should be "Jack Frost (film)." So I have to correct all existing (movie) links so I can move without a redirect. Once it's done and the disambig page up, *then* you can fix all the other links. Thanks. -- Andrew 00:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, *now* you can change the links. -- Andrew

00:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the links, Ant. But I'll repeat, as in messages above and as I mentioned in an edit summary on Tony Vogel re The Emperor's New Clothes the other day (you linked a movie about Napoleon), look up any title before linking. You linked Jack Frost to two killer snowman movies. There's no connection, just as the Jim Henson movie has no connection (in all cases, it's just the person's character name is Jack Frost as an ironic coincidence). Please either take the time to check on specific productions if you're not sure what they are, or leave a message for me. Thank you, and please leave a reply here. -- Andrew

06:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'll try my best to remember to ask you about things I'm not sure of. -- Anthony 06:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to chime in on this, Ant, you're like a machine when it comes to helpful bulk edits like this and the fixes are super appreciated. But the blind edits are becoming a bit of a recurring issue. To reiterate Andrew's concerns, it shouldn't take that much effort to be thoughtful about link changes like that. It's important to look at the context of what you're changing and not just indiscriminately change everything as if you're on automatic mode. We have bots that can do that; a human editor should use more discretion. —Scott

(talk) 14:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

links

I'm such a dummy. Thanks for fixing the link. —Scott (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks also for catching this and others like it. I had submitted a ticket about this bug last year and just sent a follow-up. —Scott

(talk) 13:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you cite these properly, please? Edit summaries are helpful, but they should be inline on the article. Muppet Wiki:Sources. —Scott

(talk) 12:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I added the sources to the page. Sorry I didn't do that to begin with. —Anthony 16:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Context for links

Ant, I didn't leave you a message but I left a clear edit summary when I created melodrama: "only specific contextual references to stage or early film melodrama, or spoofs thereof, should be linked to this or 'melodramatic.'"

Blind linking of words which have since developed generic usage, without checking context or asking, doesn't help. Please continue to be careful about this. I'll repeat what Scott said in December: "It's important to look at the context of what you're changing and not just indiscriminately change everything as if you're on automatic mode. We have bots that can do that; a human editor should use more discretion." Please reply here so we know you understand. Thanks. -- Andrew 15:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, please reply to Scott's message above this asking you to include citations in the actual article per format. You do a lot of helpful work but your communication is slipping again. It's important to respond to messages on your talk page, even if we forget to include a "please reply" to remind you. -- Andrew

15:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I should have looked at the edit history instead of just clicking on the page. -- Anthony 16:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. You're still not sourcing properly, though. You're making year changes regarding character designs and on Through the Years by pasting YouTube or twitter links in an edit summary, and nothing in text. You really need to cite the specific appearance you're using when changing the year in text, or at least the summary, as otherwise we have a hard time following your trail *and* it's useless if the links are dead. As Scott said, cite sources in the article. Just pasting a link in an edit summary is never a citation. Please remember, as we've had to bring this up multiple times (this is the fourth instance since September). -- Andrew

18:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't know citing the appearance in the article was necessary, since those pages just say the years that a design was in use. -- Anthony 03:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Ant. It took me awhile to think of how best to reply to you. If you're including a citation in an edit summary, that itself indicates you thought a citation was needed. So it belongs in the article. If you're making changes to design years, which is an iffy area in general due to user perceptions (if you look at Through the Years, there's a lot of back and forthing for that reason, thus the need to cite), you need to cite or start a discussion. We went through this with your similar changes to performer years and other issues, and in all the messages above which I mentioned. It's sounding like you've forgotten or aren't understanding our repeated messages to you about citing sources in articles. How can we make it clearer to you? It's all on Muppet Wiki:Sources which has been linked multiple times recently. Havbe you re-read it when I or other admins have linked it to you? Taking some time to do so, and noting how it emphasizes that we try to source "as often as possible," would be useful, and the actual in article formatting. An edit summary isn't good enough unless you're just saying "from the screen credits" or other easily verifiable source that neither risks being taken down nor needs actual date (what is it, when was it, and why are you using that to change a year or say this is when an event happened, or anything else). You do a lot of good work, but this particular blindspot for a user who has been around as long as you have is becoming a bit of a concern. If you find you're not sure whether to cite or are still having formatting problems, *please* ask an admin for help. -- Andrew

03:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I promise to always add sources to the article, not just the edit summery, from now on. -- Anthony 02:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Julianne Buescher

Ant, please leave Julianne Buescher alone. Your last edits are drawing unwarranted attention to something the article's subject herself removed. Admins discussed what was happening with the now undone edits, so there's no reason to point to them. Nothing in that says Wholly Moley was the last thing she worked on (may be unreleased stuff), we don't know what the future holds, and besides, you sometimes forgot that on Muppet Wiki, we use "Muppets" or "the Muppets" even to encompass Sesame Street projects (and she worked on Not Too Late recently and may show up in other stuff). So please don't make any changes of that kind to her page. If Ms. Buescher comes by and wants to make alterations, that's something else. Thanks for understanding. -- Andrew 03:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think we should find a way to cover the info somehow, so ToughPigs and so forth aren't wondering "Why aren't Yolanda and Beverly Plume around anymore?" -- Anthony 04:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not our business to wonder. We document. Anthony, please don't pursue the matter with Buescher any further. We're very close to venturing into personal territory, and, as an editor here herself, I don't want her getting soured on the wiki. Please let the admins handle the situation. Thanks for your understanding. —Scott

(talk) 10:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Time stamps

Hi, Ant. Just a reminder, information sourced from podcasts needs a time stamp, especially if the edit summary asks for one. It's the equivalent of including a page number for a print source, and it's specified as policy on our sources page. Please add one when you can. Thanks! -- Andrew 05:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Did it! -- Anthony 05:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

En masse edits and link changes

Hi, Ant. Scott left you a message about this in September here. You never replied, so I'm not sure if you read it or remember, but I'll quote him. "We've talked about this before, but not every change on the wiki needs a blanket response. Some of those link changes didn't really make sense, so let's take a breather and figure out the best course of action before moving forward on undiscussed mass edits." The page rename on Shout! Factory was undiscussed and had to be undone (if the company does change its name, it hasn't actually happened yet, and we don't rename on stuff that hasn't been confirmed yet; the editor was apparently just going by Wikipedia). In fact it happened because of a Fandom issue we're dealing with right now (only admins should be able to move anyway). However, when moving back, we as admins can't delete the unneeded Shout! Studios yet because you changed the redirects. So this time, we're going to request that you please do the cleanup and undo all of your link changes yourself.

Please re-read the style guide policy on en masse editing. At this point, unless you are correcting a typo, that definitely applies to the kind of bulk changes you tend to do, and especially any page move or creation of a new stub page that will likely be deleted. "It actually does no harm to leave a redirect, as long as it goes to the correct page, as it is, so you can wait on some or even all of that. You often do it correctly, but whenever you do so prematurely, doing it on dozens to hundreds of pages at a time creates a lot of work for administrators, rather than actually helping as is your intent. You do a lot of good work but we'd really appreciate your remembering the reminders we've left you about our policies and practices, and we recommend re-reading the messages above whenever you're unsure. Also please leave a response here so we know you understand. We'd appreciate it. -- Andrew 20:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize. I'll try to be more careful. -- Anthony 21:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverting admins

Ant, we've had to remind you of this before. Please don't revert edits by admins, as you did here. If you're confused as to why Scott made a change, ask here. The reason is covered in the recent discussion here. Admins decided to try to remind users to limit our cleanup and maintenance of the blank backgrounds page. Otherwise we might have to protect it to admin only. If you think an admin made a mistake or you're wondering why, ask them. That's part of communication as has been stated to you several times, and it's one of the first items in the FAQ here.

We appreciate everything you do that's helpful, Ant, but you've gone backwards on behaviors like this of late. Please, as I said in my last message, *re-read messages* here if you need to refresh your memory. Edit warring, reverting admins without communication, and so on should not happen again, and there's no reason for you to feel a need to restore edits by new or less reliable users over administrators. Please respond, and if there's a particular reason you're having trouble with this that we can help you with, let us know. Thank you. -- Andrew 16:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I promise not to revert edits from admins anymore. -- Anthony 16:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

cite tags

Hi Ant, thanks for cleaning up some of the periphera on the Land of Gorch article. However, please don't remove cite tags without adding a source. When a cite tag is added to a piece of information, it means that the statement in question needs to be verified. I saw your edit summary, but you removed the cite tag without adding a reference. You can see that I did that here. Thanks! —Scott (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

linking every word on the wiki

Hi, Ant. We're getting ready to publish a couple new pages and move some out of sandbox that have common terms that appear a lot in our articles. Just wanted to drop a reminder that not every word on the wiki needs to link to an article. Please use discretion when linking by considering the context of how the word is being used. If you have any questions, feel free to ask as opposed to a mass blanket of edits than may need to be reverted and/or cleaned up. Thanks! —Scott (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. -- Anthony 04:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Maintenance and user space pages

Ant, please don't edit User:BradFraggle/Sandbox maintenance. He started it, and it should only be edited by him or admins. Any page with "maintenance" in the title really is for admins. We'll keep track of the deleting and updating there, which we're mostly doing in groups. All user spaces in fact should not be edited by anyone except the user who started it or admins for cleanup, unless you're reverting a vandal which is extremely rare.

At this point also, we really would like you to reply to every message, not just when we say "please reply." This has been mentioned before, but you're still not saying anything if we don't insist that you respond, which leaves admins wondering if you've read and understood our messages. -- Andrew 19:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'll respond to all your messages in the future. -- Anthony 04:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Reverting again

Ant, this is becoming serious. I left you a message about reverting admins only a few days ago, August 25th, and said there's never a reason for you to do that. You're supposed to talk to them. At the time, you said "I promise not to revert edits from admins anymore." And you just did it again here. It's true Jon didn't leave an edit summary, but that's because he was reverting edits from a temp blocked user adding all sorts of either questionable or provably false appearance claims. Did you actually watch the episode before you reverted, or just revert because you saw info removed and did so without considering Jon had a reason?

This is what I told you then. "Edit warring, reverting admins without communication, and so on should not happen again, and there's no reason for you to feel a need to restore edits by new or less reliable users over administrators.

Ant, you've done a lot of good stuff, but are you actually reading or understanding our messages? At most, when we press you, you say "I'm sorry" but your editing patterns suggest you're not remembering. I've even left multiple messages asking you to re-read the messages on your wall. Did you ever do that?

This is a major violation of Muppet Wiki:Communication and continues a general concerning pattern. Can you explain why you did this, and do more than an "I'm sorry" to reassure us? -- Andrew 07:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I rewatched the episode and found that the list of Muppets who appeared is accurate. -- Anthony 07:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

That's helpful but still not the best answer, Ant. You reverted an admin after promising not to, with no edit summary or explanation. You didn't talk to Jon. Your communication has gotten steadily worse. And you didn't answer any of the other questions. Have you actually re-read the messages on your talk page? Why do you keep redoing things you've been asked not to every few days or weeks? I don't wish to sound harsh, but we need more than a one sentence response, Ant. -- Andrew

09:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes I get so focused on other things that I forget to reread messages on my talk page. I'm very germ conscious, so before I type things on my computer I wash my hands. That's why a lot of what I do on the wiki is fix typos, because it doesn't take a lot of typing. I'm on the autism spectrum. -- Anthony 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, Ant, and you do have our sympathy. But there's still an issue with your saying you won't do something and then you do it again, and we've been going several extra miles when other users would have already received at least a temporary block or in most cases longer, because you've done a lot of good work over the years. Your typo correction is appreciated but we need to be able to trust you. Can you think of something you can do so when you tell us "I won't do blank" you don't just do it again anyway a short time after? We've done our best to communicate with you, but we really need you to communicate back, and not just edit automatically. If you're not sure why something has been changed by an admin, you need to ask them. If it takes some extra time for you to do so, please take that time. It's become a frustrating situation for us, and in several cases you've continued to violate policy pages which we keep linking to you. We need users who can abide by policies and communicate with others, which is more important than how many edits they make.

Also, I just rewatched the episode on Disney+. I didn't spot Beuregard. Can you specify where he is, either time stamp or other specifics? -- Andrew

09:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I promise to look back at all the past messages on my talk page and if I think something got removed by mistake, I will ask the person who made the edit before I change it. Beauregard can be seen behind Yolanda and Pepe during the scene where Yolanda poses as Pache talking to Pepsi. -- Anthony 10:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ant, you've been better in using summaries but you're reverting admins again, as here. If you're confused, ask the admin or other editor on their talk page. You shouldn't be blindly reverting, even with an edit summary, to favor a not yet trusted user (or as you often have, provably unreliable users) over an administrator. Please stop. "It says so elsewhere on the Wiki," if it's not sourced on the wiki article, is not a source in itself (and if it is sourced, as Jon says, it belongs on the page). Always communicate with Jon or any other administrator if you disagree with their edit changes or reversions. We've repeated this policy to you about edit warring and reverting multiple times on this very page. -- Andrew

05:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'll try to remember to ask an editor before reverting an edit. -- Anthony 05:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You're still not bothering to commuinicate with Jobn in anyway. What's stopping you from asking him about the edits and whether something is relevant on the page? In this case, it's not relevant on that page, though it was worth noting on TED. What can we do to get you to understand how vital communication is, Anthony? Your edit summaries are mostly better, though "clearer wording" doesn't communicate much, but there's more to communication than that. Are you having some kind of issue opening talk pages? Otherwise, you really *must* leave a talk message to the other editor any time you feel like reinserting something Jon or any other admin removes. Consider that mandatory, Anthony. You really are improving in other areas but you've read Muppet Wiki:Communication by now (and if you haven't, do so now; we've linked it for you multiple times). Thank you. -- Andrew

06:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't like that when I try to add a new section to talk pages, I have to start from scratch when it comes to signing my name. I guess I could just click the Edit Source button whenever I wanna make a new section. I promise to try to remember to reach out to users before reverting. -- Anthony 07:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

All you need to do is click the ADD TOPIC link, type, and sign. —Scott

(talk) 12:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

All right then. -- Anthony 18:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

edit summaries moving forward

Anthony, there's been some admin discussion about your edits lately and some communication barriers. I think you're a terrific editor and I want to make sure you can continue collaborating with everyone, but we can't keep covering the same ground. We all do this in our spare time amidst jobs and other life complications, so it's really important that everyone's a team player to ensure we don't have extra work to do to uphold the integrity of the wiki and all the work we do.

To help with this, from this point point forward, I'm asking that you please add an edit summary to every edit you make. We're going to be rigid on this new rule, so please respond here to let me know that you understand what this means. Thank you. —Scott (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I promise to do that from now on. -- Anthony 22:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much appreciated. —Scott

(talk) 22:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ant, thank you for being consistent with this. We've seen a big improvement. Please do me a favor though and try to be a bit more specific. Auto-filling the field from your browser's memory is convenient, but it's not always accurate. For example, "adding link" doesn't really tell us anything when looking at the logs. Consider using "linking new article for xxxxx" or "correcting name from xxxx to yyyy." This request is two-fold: it helps admins and future editors looking at history logs to determine what was done in a past edit, and it encourages a more thoughtful approach when the edit is being made. —Scott

(talk) 12:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll try. -- Anthony 22:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Ant. You've slowed down your edits a lot and it's helped us considerably. Thanks for the good work. But you haven't done what Scott asked you to do in his last message. You're still using the auto fill on your summaries, and just using "Adding link." If you need a model, please look at my own edit summaries, where I usually try to specify what page is being linked or note when its multiple pages or whatever. You said you'd try and you haven't yet, so please make the effort from now on, even if it means a little more typing. Thank you! -- Andrew

23:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll at least be specific about the links I add to pages. -- Anthony 01:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw, that really does help. Please keep up the good work! -- Andrew

02:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Ant. You're doing great with the edit summaries. But a reminder, don't just revert to what a blocked user's edit was, as here. If it's just one chicken and you confirmed from viewing, then that's what the page should say. It might be easier for you to type but it's less accurate that way and contradicts your own edit summary. You're doing great work overall, but just be very careful in this area. Thank you!-- Andrew

20:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. -- Anthony 06:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please don't use "updating" as an edit summary. —Scott

(talk) 13:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I won't. -- Anthony 13:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, Ant, if you're adding something completely new to a list, just type what it is. "Adding details" is as vague as "adding link" and "updating," and looking at the actual edits, you're usually in fact adding a new entry to a list or fact (as opposed to adding further descriptions or specifics to an existing sentence or passage). Please just say what you're adding or where it's from. As we've said, we know it's easier for you to use autofill, but it doesn't tell us anything. Please don't use "adding details" again. Thank you! -- Andrew

21:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to be more specific. -- Anthony 8:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Elmo

Please stop, the edit I made were correct. He began performing Elmo in 1985, not 1984. Please stop changing it back. Anonymously92 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The admins of this wiki have been given actual scripts of Sesame episodes that say when they were filmed. Kevin's first performance of Elmo, Episode 2026, was filmed in 84. Therefore, 84 is correct. Anthony 06:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Apology

I just want to say I sincerely apologize for my edits on the Elmo article. The reasons for my changes was because the sources were confusing, several sources say he began performing him in 1985. Because on Wikipedia, it says that Richard Hunt performed him from 1984 to 1985, and it says that Clash began performing him in 1985 instead of 1984. But I will still take your word for it, half the time I don’t know info is right and which one is wrong, that’s why it can get really confusing. Again, I am very sorry. Anonymously92 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

In-text citations again

Ant, this is yet another reminder to add citations in the article, not in the edit summary box. In your recent edit to Labyrinth (pinball), you changed the date to reflect that of the new source you had specified, but you did not replace the old source in the article, creating misinformation. I'm sure you didn't mean to do that, but this is a prime example why we've been asking you to cite in text. Please read (or re-read) our note on replacing outdated sources on Muppet Wiki:Sources#Other notes. We appreciate what you do for the Wiki, but we also appreciate you being more vigilant about this particular issue since it's come up several times now. Thanks. — Jon (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I should have checked to see if what was already there changed the release date. Sorry. -- Anthony 4:40, 1 Feburary 2024 (UTC)

quotes template

Thanks for catching my mistake here. I looked at the quoted passage too quickly. —Scott (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Communication moving forward

Hi Ant. We as admins have noticed you've still been having recurring issues where you revert admin edits. You've had multiple warnings in over two years, the last left by Andrew in December said it was mandatory, and yet this has persisted into March, including your recent reversion of Andrew's edit. If an admin leaves an edit summary asking for a source or consensus, that means a citable source (not just "sounds like so-and-so") and actual forum consensus.

We ordinarily wouldn't have left so many warnings at this point, but we realize you've done a lot of good work over the years and we've seen improvements in other areas. However, the above has become an especially troublesome issue, so from now on, we're requiring that you always ask an admin before you revert or undo their edit. If you have a citable source, message the admin on their talk page, or else edit and show it properly, not just in an edit summary, and use the edit summary itself to explain. We can try to help you with citation issues, but you should be referring to Muppet Wiki:Sources for what actually counts as a source and how to cite it.

Because there's been a history, we're going to be stringent with this requirement. If you undo/revert an admin again without properly messaging them, you will face a temporary loss of editing privileges. If you're unable to communicate with the admins for whatever reason, just leave the edit alone. — Jon (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I promise to try to remember to message admins before reverting their edits. Anthony (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Ant, your response suggests you either didn't grasp what we the admins are asking you to do, or not taking it seriously. So I'm afraid we'll have to be even blunter. It's not a question of "trying to remember." I'm bolding Jon's words: If you undo/revert an admin again without properly messaging them, you will face a temporary loss of editing privileges. If you're unable to communicate with the admins for whatever reason, just leave the edit alone. So those are your options. Message admins before making a change, or just leave the edit alone. This is a final warning on this topic, as otherwise there will be a temporary block the next time you engage in that behavior. Please take it seriously as such. -- Andrew

19:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand. I promise to be more careful. Anthony (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

checking sources

Hi Ant. I noticed you saw this edit and made a typo fix, but considering the editor is new, did you verify their change to the article? —Scott (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't. Anthony (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

As a veteran editor, you have the agency to question additions from new contributors. Making a correction and keeping the new addition implies that the information is verified. In this case, it is not. I wasn't able to back it up, so I reverted the addition. —Scott

(talk) 13:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Announcers

Hey Ant. We're planning to move the Announcers page out of Sandbox soon. I'm giving you a head's up because, while I know you like to add links and it's usually helpful for us, there've been previous instances where we've told you not to link generic words and place names without checking the context first. In this case, we do not want to link every mention of "Announcer(s)" across the Wiki. We're actually going to limit linking to just the Performer Filmography pages for mentions of "various Announcers" or "announcer for X." Feel free to link on any of the performer galleries (Jerry Nelson, Marty Robinson, etc.), but not on any other Wiki pages. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions. — Jon (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Air Date Edits

Hi! Thanks for cleaning up those errors I made earlier. I've got the Source section now. FYI I have the List of Episodes page open and am editing those dates as I do the individual episode pages. I save when I take a break. So no need to follow along with that but I appreciate the help! Muppeturgy (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure. Anthony (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing again

Ant, you're slipping with sources again. A few days ago, you simply added "Interview with The MuppetCast" as a source. This on its own is not acceptable. We should be adding accessible sources that can be read or linked, and you've been previously messaged about specifying timestamps for podcasts. I only recently noticed that The MuppetCast website has been defunct, and yet, you still added this as a source. If you saved the interview, you need to timestamp and explain. If you took notes or transcribed it, we might accept that. But otherwise, your citation indicates that you were simply adding from memory, which is a major taboo of our Sourcing policy. I find it pretty alarming that we have to tell an editor of 14 years, who we've reminded about sourcing on at least several occasions, that this is not a good thing to do.

If you haven't actually read Muppet Wiki:Sources, or last read it years ago, we need you to read it now and respond here once you have. If there's any aspect that's confusing, we'll explain it to you, but it is mandatory that you read it and keep the guidelines in mind when you're citing sources. — Jon (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I read the whole sources article and I get it. Even if I remember something very clearly, it doesn't count as a source. Anthony (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Video sourcing and citation again

Hi, Anthony. While that was a good catch on William Congreve (the text on Cursing Muppets made it sound like it was the interview as discussed on Popcorn with Peter Travers), please remember what we've told you before. You can't just park a link in an edit summary. You need to actually link it in the text or use the citation format. I did it for you, but please try to remember. You've been doing better overall but this is something we've had to leave you a lot of reminders about. Is there some reason you have trouble with this? -- Andrew 05:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think linking to a video of a Muppet appearance is only relevant when the article is about that specific show. For instance, linking to a YouTube video of a Muppet on a talk show works when the article is about that specific talk show. If I should link to videos even if the article isn't about the show the video is related to, I'll do that from now on. Anthony (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works, Ant, when you're using the video as a citation to explain a change and it's nowhere else on Muppet Wiki (we're not talking about just every time an appearance is mentioned which has its own page, and this did not at all). You're using a video to source something and explain something which is not otherwise clear on the page or anywhere else (only in your summary), so you need to link to it. Otherwise there's no link to it unless we check your history and manually paste, nothing clickable, nothing to explain to readers. It's the same as if you were failing to cite and include a video interview with a puppeteer or writer you're using to source and explain something because it was not on anything with a solo page. It's the same issue that Jon brought up here, that we've told you about multiple times, or in his message to you when you just pasted "Interview with MuppetCast" in a summary. This is why he asked you in July if you'd read the sources policy. Do you understand now? -- Andrew

16:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand now. Anthony (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Then please be sure to source from now on within the article text. We appreciate all you do, but it's a little tiring to keep reminding and explaining this specific point to you (as we have many times over the years, and now within just a few months). If it helps, think of it this way. Why are you pasting the link in the edit summary to begin with? To source information. Well, sources belong in the article, and that's spelled out on the policy page (which you said in July you'd read and understood): "Anything obtained through personal correspondence, from private social media platforms, offline websites, individual interviews or articles, etc. needs to be cited in text." It doesn't matter if it's a character or an interview or what, if it's video or audio content not from something that's obviously within a known production where you can just link to the existing page, you have to link to it as a citation.

Please be more vigilant. Otherwise we might have to finally at least enact a short suspension of editing privileges, and you've been showing progress overall (compared to the edit warring with admins and other issues, and you have been communicating better), so we'd really prefer not to do that. But as an editor of fourteen years, we also have certain expectations of you, more than with newer users, so please, if you have to paste a link to Muppet Wiki:Sources on your desktop or check it every time you cite so you'll remember how, please do. If there's some other reason you're still struggling with this concept, let us know and we'll try to help you. -- Andrew

05:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relationship notes

Ant, we've been meaning to formally message you about an infrequent but intrusive pattern in your edits. We'd like to gently but firmly remind you that Muppet Wiki is not a tabloid but an encyclopedia. Do not pry into performer's personal lives or relationships, which reflects badly on Muppet Wiki as a whole, as well as being tied to overall internet privacy and safety concerns. Please be professional when contacting performers and limit queries to about their roles or work, not their private lives or rumors or any job conflicts. This has been an unwritten policy because we thought it was self explanatory, but we've felt the need to explain it, and emphasize that this is mandatory. To sum up and underline, do not post any more "X is married to Y" notes or the like on articles. Thank you. — Jon (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright. I won't do that anymore. But if saying who so and so is married to is in bad taste, what about the Family connections page? Anthony (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Anthony, we didn't want to be so blunt but since you asked, the issue is the pattern in your edits specifically, not how other editors have written about the topics. Specifically your past handling of relationship information in November 2023 (we should have contacted you at the time about it, but it was the edits which caused us to have to protect certain performer pages, because of the way you went about it off-wiki to get the information so you could make the claims).

So we're mostly concerned about a repeat of that, and for that reason, we need you to stay away from the topic entirely (no matter where you find the info) and follow Jon's instructions, as the best way to avoid any further issues. That way we don't have to worry about your crossing lines. So you have to follow this, and the other mandatory guidelines we've given you, from now on. -- Andrew

01:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I saw quite a few pictures on Instagram of Drew Massey and Nicolette Santino together. So when I saw both of them together at DragonCon, I thought I would ask if they were a couple. I did preface by saying they didn't have to answer the question if it was too personal. They didn't seem upset with me for asking. But, I understand. I won't do that to any of the pages anymore. Anthony (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Anthony, please don't reach out to people asking them about their personal lives. And despite where else on the wiki relationships are mentioned, please don't add them anymore. It looks bad for you and it looks bad for the wiki. You do an outstanding job of keeping certain things on the wiki tidy and up-to-date, for which we're all very grateful. But if we find that you're continuing to dig around about people's personal lives, especially (but not exclusively) on behalf of the wiki, the admins are going to have to consider a block. This is non-negotiable. Please don't let it come to that. —Scott

(talk) 12:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Believe me, I learned my lesson. I will not do that anymore. Anthony (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! We all really appreciate it. —Scott

(talk) 13:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

More plaza sesamo episodes?

Can you add episodes 1057+?

Sorry, I don't have Plaza Sesamo episodes in my possession. Anthony (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Time Out

Ant, you recently added a claim that was added by Reid, despite that Andrew messaged him earlier about said edit and identifying performers by ear. We've had to explain to him, and you, why this alone is not sufficient and that it needs, at minimum, a group consensus by way of forum discussion before adding. Andrew told you this in 2022 (and has messaged you many other times about communicating), and yet, more often than not, you've instead piggy-backed off other users' edits rather than actually initiating a discussion. He also mentioned here that "it says so elsewhere on the Wiki" is not a source. And Scott messaged you earlier this year to question and verify additions from new contributors, something you have also consistently neglected. We're repeating ourselves at this point, so for repeated evasions from our instructions, you are receiving a disciplinary three-day block. I am also issuing the directive that you not make any more "thanks to X's addition" edits. Hopefully, the multi-day break from the Wiki will help cement this. — Jon (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, Ant, please respond here when your ban lifts, as part of the Communication Policy. We really want to restore communication and regain our trust in you, but you have to make the effort as well. Reply here immediately when unblocked, before editing anything else, and we can discuss it. Thank you. — Jon

(talk) 01:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. I should've read Andrew's message to Reid before editing the Talkin' With the Cat page. From now on, if Reid adds a performer to a page, particularly if it's a character that just makes noises and not actual dialogue, I'll leave it alone, unless there's a consensus. Anthony (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Belly Bashing

Ant, what's your source for this edit? —Scott (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Reid's voice-chasing from watching the episode. It can be removed for now unless other voice-chasers agree. Anthony (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Back in April (as seen here), I said to you, "As a veteran editor, you have the agency to question additions from new contributors. Making a correction and keeping the new addition implies that the information is verified."

I know you keep a close eye on RecentChanges, have seen the exchanges with Reid about updating performers, and are aware that some of the additions are questionable (with some concern for the validity of his additions as well).

Your continuing to blindly follow through with any unverified addition to the wiki without questioning it is one of the reasons why the admins recently issued a break for your editing privileges. Can you help me understand what it is about that concept that you're struggling with? —Scott

(talk) 15:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If somebody adds a performer to a page, I assume they've done vocal comparisons to other characters that they've done. If you want, I'll ignore Reid's performer additions and just trust more veteran voice-chasers like Shane and Tony. If Reid does end up adding performers to a page again, I promise to question them before editing. Anthony (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the problem. The issue isn't necessarily this specific case; I'm speaking generally here. You've been a valued editor on Muppet Wiki for 14 years. You've seen policy shift, how guidelines are crafted, and the way in which we determine what information is and is not appropriate to add to an article.

"I assume they've done [a] vocal comparison" is not an acceptable reason to double down on an addition and push it further into the fabric of the wiki, especially for new editors who may not have yet earned the full confidence of the community. Does that make sense? I'm worried that my words are failing me and I'm not being clear about that. —Scott

(talk) 15:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand. I should always question an editor before making an edit based off of what they've done. Anthony (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Please use discretion. For the most part, you know who the trusted, veteran editors are. If something is questionable, either leave it alone, revert it, or bring it up for discussion depending on what the situation is. —Scott

(talk) 15:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Anthony (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Antsamthompson9