If you leave a message for me, I will reply here so that it is easier to follow the conversation instead of bouncing back and forth between two or more pages.
- Okay. The way you stop a page from being created again is to do this:
- Delete the page.
- Go into the Deletion Log, then use the right mouse button to click on the link and select "open in new tab" or "open in new window". On a Mac, hold down the Option key when you click on it.
- When the page opens, it will put you into edit mode and tell you "Note: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted."
- In the address bar of your web browser, change the part that says action=edit&redlink=1 to action=protect and press Enter.
- Select how much protection you want on it and set an expiration time. Click on Confirm.
- If it's enough of a problem, you would select "Administrators only". In this case, I'm going to try the middle level to see if the anonymous user will come back under an account to create it again. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 00:28, May 22, 2014 (UTC)
Um, RRabbit I know asked this before, but could I ADMIN on dreamworks if you need help on there? I know it's too soon, but I thought I could fix there. If no, there a way I earn it at least?--Kyurem147 (talk) 06:20, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
- There are a couple of wikis where I am about to open up admin nominations or requests. There are several people on each that are putting in the effort that they deserve the additional responsibility. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 05:58, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
- Admin nominations/requests are now open on that wiki. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 06:49, February 15, 2015 (UTC)
Antagonist fussing Edit
- It's a type of edit war where one person says a character is one kind of antagonist, then another says they're a different kind, then someone else says they're yet another kind, then another says they're the first kind. It goes back and forth, round and round, with everyone focusing and fussing on such a tiny detail. Some of it was actually vandalism because the same person would change it over and over again, contradicting what they said before.
- The more I saw this happening, the more I saw how useless these kinds of edits are. Is it really important to know exactly, precisely, rigidly, minutely what level of an antagonist a character is? I'm not kidding when I use those four words. That's exactly what antagonist fussing is and exactly what has happened. Trying to pinpoint exactly what kind of an antagonist each character is in relation to all other antagonists.
- It has been pretty bad here in the past, along with category spamming, which is when someone spends all or almost all of their time only adding categories. I actually had to make it a policy on the DreamWorks Wiki and I need to make it a policy here.
- I have some of this information available in these areas:
- There are more important things to add to wikis than to fuss over what kind of antagonist or protagonist a character is. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 18:14, May 10, 2015 (UTC)
Re: Antagonist FussingEdit
I received your message and will act accordingly. If other wiki users abuse that antagonist fussing rule and continue to do it after ignoring the warning messages we leave them, they will be automatically blocked.
Well, if it's alright with everyone, I won't set finger in this wiki again, just to avoid more "fussing." I've tried, and I've tried, there's just no respect for anyone with vision. That's it, there's just nothing I can do about it. Good day. —Preceding unsigned message added by Jeff Meredith (talk • contribs) 04:00, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
- So rather than trying to show me how your "vision" is different than people who can't make up their mind and fight about it, and how it is a benefit to this wiki, you're leaving. I think that's for the best because it's disappointing to hear you trying to justify your behavior this way. But be warned. As I said, this is a policy on several more wikis I'm an admin on and I'm going to be working to bring more admins on board so that they can spend less time on users squabbling over minor details. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 04:59, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
Re: Antagonist Fussing issueEdit
I am all for the "antagonist fussing" rule, but for certain articles, it wouldn't hurt to simply say "antagonist" or "minor antagonist" if the character only appears for a short duration of the film or TV show. Doesn't that sound fair? Please get back to me on this. Thanks.
- It's allowed. I actually have a provision in the policy for that. If the description will use that word, it's okay to say "main antagonist" or "minor antagonist", but not any further.
- Since this has been a big problem for a while, I'm trying to take the approach of "let's find a better word to let people know up front what the character does in the story". What's said first is often what people remember the most about a given subject. Saying "antagonist" is generic. Words like "leader", "hunter", "friend" tell you more immediately who they are as a person or what they do. I've put in "a character" a few times when I couldn't think of a better description right then, but that's a generic description as well.
- We can use "main antagonist" or "minor antagonist" if we need to, but let's try not to. So many people have been unable to get past those descriptions, and simply by having them there, it encourages them to go right back to rigidly-defining what kind of antagonist a character is. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 13:48, July 20, 2015 (UTC)