Hello, On the J.S. page, you reverted my edit. Well, the film had a deleted scene which had a real sailor named Captain Sam. Captain Sham stole his identity basically. How about I add Captain Sam, with two words saying "non-canon" and "film only"?
Going through the film transcript, it never even names Captain Sham as Julio. Unless it can be confirmed that this other deleted-scenes only character is actually named Julio, then we have no evidence of him being a JS. Which deleted scene was this from (describe the scene)?
I disagree with Max's choice to ignore conversation. If there is a specific edit you want me to look at, let me know.
Going over Max's recent contributions:
I agree with Max that files that are fan art should be deleted.
I disagree with removing the TV series image in "Madame Lulu's Library". Though the image could be cropped better (or screenshot instead of photo of TV screen).
Again for "Woman with Hair but No Beard" & "Man With a Beard But No Hair", I agree with Max removing fanart.
For Ellington Feint theory being "Woman with Hair but No Beard" - it's speculation.
I personally disagree with adding speculation but I know other users, like Alex, take a much more liberal view of including fan theories.
However, if you must add fan theories, only add them in "Trivia" section (if there isn't a "Trivia" section in the article, then add one). The rest of the article should focus on canon, not fan theories. Also, start the bullet point with "Some fans speculate" to make it clear that it's a fan theory (since a lot of characters, including Lemony, have their own theories "Some people think" does not make clear that the statement does not come from canon).
For "Larry the Waiter", I believe it's fine to add Lawrence bullet point in Trivia section. However, it should say "might be" since plenty of parents officially name their children with a shortened name, so Larry's full given name might be "Larry", not Lawrence. Thus I would phrase it: "Larry is a diminutive of Lawrence, so Larry's full given name might be Lawrence."
"The Schism", again, speculation. Alex has fixed up most of the text, but I would add "Fans theorize the possible cause to have been:" or something in that manner. If it's not a fan theory, i.e. the theory is presented in the book, then it should say whose theory it is, e.g. "Violet theorizes the schism might have been caused by ..."
I just wanted to say that putting the fan art of The Man With A Beard But No Hair and The Woman With Hair But No Beard in the info box is wrong, and that you should put it in the gallery section like it is for other Characters.
Concept art is NOT fan art. From wikipedia, "Concept art is a form of illustration used to convey an idea for use in films, video games, animation, comic books, or other media before it is put into the final product." These are official images used in the production of the TV series. They were not created by random fans. Concept art is allowed on the wiki, fan art is not.
Congrats on your meaningless "Don't Trust Them!" badge. It earned you 10 meaningless points. As you continue earning the meaningless points, you'll continue moving up the meaningless leaderboard.
By all means, make productive contributions to the wiki – that actually HELPS. But when you're making nonproductive edits to earn badges, that does NOT help. If you're criticizing my lack of recent contributions than again, that does NOT help. All users are volunteers and contribute their time as they can. I'm an admin on multiple wikis, contribute to several others, have a full-time job, and a real life. This is just a friendly reminder of the importance of respecting that other users have lives.
Why are you reviving a dead conversation to add nothing?
It's Tmmeye who decided to randomly leave messages telling people to "stop editing things to obtain badges", so go hassle him on his wall if you want hassle someone. If someone leaves a nonsense message on my wall, then I'm justified in responding.
So have fun with your meaningless leaderboard, just leave me out of it.
You know, we edit this wiki together, and we're going to be doing a lot of Season 2 work, editing the same articles. I have the feeling that you experience agony whenever you see my name in the recent activity.
I know we got off on the wrong foot, but I hope you will come to accept me, or at the least, tolerate me, even if we have different styles and methods when it comes to editing.
I didn't mean to hurt you before when I said "lazy" and "selfish". I was frustrated with your editing style. I worded it as "your mentality is that of someone lazy and selfish" instead of "you are lazy and selfish", but it didn't help, which I thought it would. I still disagree with many of your claims about me, but I'm not here to talk about that right now. I'm not seeking any experiences of superiority here, even if it may not be what you believe.
I just want to tell you that I have no hard feelings and I hope you feel the same way.
I contribute to several wikis and you're nowhere near to being the bane of my existence. I generally go through all new edits on wikias I watch daily. That includes IPs, new users, and experienced users. That allows me to know what's new as well as catch errors. By no means am I trying to single you out. Going through new edits, doing spelling/grammar check plus fact check is part of my editing style/methods.
I am meticulous about facts. If something is in quotes, I expect to find those exact words in the original works. If character's rationale or emotional state is given, I expect to find that in the books. If it's not, then the wiki has to make it clear that it's an interpretation versus fact. Working across multiple wikias, I've seen many instances where fans can take the same scene and interpret in opposite ways. So when not explicitly stated, I believe wikis should describe what happened instead of extrapolating emotion/rationale.
It's nothing about hard feelings: wikis need users who add info, users who copyedit, users who fact check, etc. We all contribute to make the content better. So when I edit a recent contributions, that's nothing to do with the user personally. Similarly, if you edit my contributions, I assume it's because the content could have been written more clearly, to clarify facts, or similar reason.
By the way, do you have copies of all four All the Wrong Questions books? I was wondering if you could help me with putting illustrations on the four articles. I don't have the books myself and never read them, I just know a lot about them from the wiki. Each book has a color scheme, yes?
1 = blue, 2 = purple, 3 = orange, 4 = green
I have some illustrations I gathered from the books, but I don't know their chronological order. Could you help organize them?
I don't own the ATWQ books, I just borrow the ebooks from the library as needed. I currently have 1-3 plus FU13SI borrowed and a hold on book 4. You got the color scheme right - it matches the cover (except FU13SI, which is grey). If you upload the photos/add them to articles' illustration sections, I should be able to order them. The current illustrations look in the right order... except I can't locate File:KitArrested.png in the SYBIS...
I found this pic of Ellington on a wall. It belongs to Shouldn't You Be in School? judging by her hairstyle, but it's not in color for some reason. Do you know if there's a colored version somewhere, or is it black-and-white?
If you know how to extract images from the ebook, please consider doing so. Then we could replace it in color, and perhaps add all the illustrations (I'm sure I didn't find all of them). If you do so, remember to upload them in .png format.
Some others like "Moxie haricut.jpg" and "Images.jpeg" (on Polly Partial) are extremely low-res, so consider uploading HD versions in .png format.
While I know how, I don't extract images directly from ebooks due to legality concerns. It's also why I choose to limit how many images I upload and when I do, intentionally choose to use lower resolution. That's a decision I make for myself and I let others decide for themselves their interpretation of copyright and fair use laws. As someone coming from Wikipedia, my understanding is much stricter than many Wikia users.
Regardless, chapter headers in the ebook are approximately 350px by 180px (when enlarged), so some of the images on the wiki are of higher resolution than they are in the ebooks. For example, replacing FeintWall.png with the ebook version, while colored would be of lower resolution.
I don't recall any memorable quotes on top of my head and it'll be some time before I'll be rereading the books. So, at this time, I won't be able to assist with quotes.
Alex, just because a copyright holder posts an image online does not make it "free" or "public domain". The image is still fully copyrighted and they retain the right to sue anyone who re-uploads it elsewhere. While many copyright holders may not care, that doesn't mean they can't sue if they wanted. There are plenty of articles about people who got sued for using a photo or illustration without paying the copyright owner, e.g. 1, 2.
Many wikias use copyrighted images claiming "fair use". However, since Wikia is a for-profit website and there's often multiple high resolution images used in a single article, that is outside the scope of fair use. I use WP:FAIRUSE as guide, which among other things explains "Meeting the minimal usage criterion" (i.e. limiting number of pages a copyrighted image is used on and using lower resolution).
Again, not extracting/uploading images is a decision I make for myself and I let others decide for themselves their interpretation of copyright and fair use laws. I'm not trying to stifle you, I'm just trying to explain why I'm rejecting your request for me to extract/upload images.
The fact that it's publically online and not behind a paywall means these illustrations are indeed "free" in a way. Viewing these illustrations can entice readers into buying the book, and Seth would probably like people being able to view his work. The fact that they put it online to advertise the books means they don't care if people online see it, and also means they want people to see it as it's free promotion.
I don't agree in pedantic following of your interpretation of copyright law, especially when these books have been out for years by now. As time goes on, the less the illustrator (Seth) will get paid for it. He was already paid when he was commissioned to do these illustrations. I feel already enough time has passed, no one is being harmed by including them, and there's nothing morally wrong about it anymore. Also, consider how Daniel Handler criticizes pedantic law following himself in ASOUE. Being so uptight about following laws is detrimental when it comes to preserving art and hinders the growth of wikis, something which I value strongly.
In addition, these are pop art images and resolution doesn't really matter as a result, especially since anyone can simply upscale a low-res Seth illustration and get something almost exactly like HD quality. It's far different than putting something like the Mona Lisa through an upscaler.
I understand your concerns and your choice for not uploading the illustrations yourself, and will take responsibility if something occurs (which has never happened to me, or any other wikis which do the same thing to my knowledge). If the publisher company contacts this wiki to remove certain illustrations, I promise you that we will do so.
The copyright holder putting an image online without a paywall makes the image "free to view". However that does not make the image "free to use", e.g. uploading elsewhere, nor invalidate the copyright.
It is not my place to determine Daniel Handler's or Seth's interests. Just because the books were released 2-5 years ago, I will not copy & paste full chapters nor will I extract every image from the novels and upload them on a website. This wiki is not in charge of preservation of Seth's art or of Handler's text. Nor am I interested in discussing the morality of obeying or disobeying copyright laws.
I am not here to enforce copyright. I am quite aware that many wikis (and fans on tumblr, twitter, etc.) completely disregard copyright and upload hundreds of HD images without attribution. (Btw, Wikia guidelines state "If you are uploading files to FANDOM, you should cite the source of the file, attribute the authors, and note any copyright information, where applicable.") Wikia already has written policies in place for dealing with copyright infringement cases (which suggests they've already dealt with them) and punish the uploaders.
I choose to do what I'm comfortable with and let others do the same.
While the images are not claimed to be "free to use", they are not claimed to be "private" either. I believe that when you submit images online, you are aware of the risks of what may happen. For example, a news article may uses them, a kid may use them in their book report, and a wiki may use them on their articles. Again, it harms no one and adding illustrations helps preserve their art, make it accessible and promotes the books. If anything, we should be thanked.
Your view that wikis are not here to "preserve" art is also something I would like to challenge, because I think wikis are the perfect place for it. I'm seen it time and time again that art is lost, often due to websites being shut down, hard drive data being lost, companies going bankrupt or going defunct, etc. Because of constantly seeing art being lost, I feel the need to preserve it somehow. By putting it on wikis, people can view it and distribute it by other means, and make it far less likely for the art to be lost.
I understand your concern about uploading the entire text of the book which I don't do either, mainly because people buy books to read them, not simply view their art.
The thing you mentioned about Wikia and their feelings on image sourcing is only a suggestion at the moment and not a requirement. I don't source images because it is time-consuming and would hinder my progress when it comes to editing, and most of the time, it is obvious where the image came from. It is also not proof that Wikia has been sued or asked to remove copyrighted images either. Realistically, it's extremely unlikely Seth or the publishing company would be bothered, so it's morally fine in my eyes. As I said before, if something happens, we'll take care of it.
I am already fully aware of your feelings on the matter on what you won't do, so there is no need to constantly reiterate that you won't upload illustrations. I'm not trying to convince you to change your views and do a 180, simply know my stance and perspective, which you do.
I think this conversation has exhausted itself so I'm going to get going. Thanks for your time.
We have widely different opinion of copyright. Below I responded to your assertions above. Some of the text below, particularly the middle paragraph, may be adverse. However, there is little point to this debate since both of us have stated that we are fine with each doing what they decided for themselves.
In the United States, images, be they photographs or illustrations, are automatically copyrighted. By putting an image online, you are aware that others may infringe on your copyright, but you are not invalidating your copyright. All good news sites will ask for permission before using an image though many "kids" don't (also there is a huge difference between a book report handed in school [which is very likely coverd by fair-use] and re-uploading the image elsewhere online).
The notion that people should be "thanked" for infringing copyright without bothering to even source/attribute the image is laughable. Similarly, arguing that attribution takes too much time sounds like "mentality is that of someone lazy and selfish". Just because the copyright holder has better things to do, doesn't mean stealing someone's work is "morally fine" – it's legally low-risk but morality has little to nothing to do with it. If an artist is concerned about preservation, there are plenty of ways they can go about that without others unilaterally taking it out of their hands. Wikia, like any business, can go bankrupt or defunct. Given the images we're talking about are in millions of printed books and downloaded e-books, among other sources, it's arrogant to think that wikia will be the preserver of art.
Most wikias, including this one, are licensed under CC-BY-SA. Unless otherwise stated, everything on the wikias is under the same license. That is why wikia tells users to site source, attribute, and list copyright info for files. I've seen news sources attribute images to wikia because wikia users didn't bother with proper sourcing/attribution. (This happens most often with photographs of real people since copyright/license status of those images are not as obvious.) When uploading an image, I try to state source, attribution, & copyright status to the best of my knowledge. It's not as good as having permission, but it's better than nothing.
I said we should be thanked for promoting and preserving, not for "infringing copyright" and "not sourcing". I realize you said "the notion", not "your notion", but I feel it's borderline twisting my message.
Attribution does take time. The majority of normal readers don't view image pages. In our previous talk, having an unnecessary or easily fixeable  just looks bad because it's in an actual article. When you constantly upload/replace/delete pics like me, attribution feels like an unnecessary chore. I view attribution like sprinkles on a cupcake, especially when the source is obvious. Yes, I admit I will be lazy when it comes things I don't care about and are not a high priority to me. Trying to fix s is a high priority for me, while image attribution and copyright is a high priority for you. We simply have different priorities.
Wikis and online databases have been preserving information for two decades and more. I don't see Wikia or Wikipedia shutting down anytime soon.
Most scans can't compare to source material quality and actual pixel-by-pixel source art, and many illustrations are rarer. For example, KitArrested.png wasn't in your eBook.
Are we going to argue semantics now? When the implementation of "promoting and preserving" is adding all illustrations from the books with the highest resolution possible without providing source, attribution, and copyright information and without asking permission that pretty much is "infringing copyright" and "not sourcing". Just because the copyright holder has better things to do then sue random kids online, doesn't change that.
You consider attribution/copyright no big deal. I consider citation needed tags no big deal. So what if the reader sees them. If it helps them realize that not everything on the wiki is guaranteed to be true, that's great. If it makes it clear to them that there is no source provided for the information, that's great. If it encourages them to contribute to the wiki, e.g. adding a source, even better. This wiki is not a professional publication and there are plenty of areas that can use improvement. Pointing that out to readers is a good thing. And if the aim is to make it look like a professional publication, then attribution/copyright of images should be made a priority since all professional publication do so.
Wikipedia is a non-profit ran my donations with many interested parties wanting to ensure its continuation. Wikia is for-profit company, one of dozens allowing users to create topical wikis. It's going to continue while it's making a sufficient profit and the stakeholders have interest in continuing. It's been around for a decade but plenty of decade old web services have gone defunct, e.g. GeoCities comes to mind. Sure it'll stay around for now (assuming company's finances are fine), but I sincerely doubt that it'll be the preferred fan source (if it even is now) in a couple decades.
If you're going to argue scans aren't good enough, then you should probably not use KitArrested.png as an example. An image that appears in a million book is by no means rare. Nor is the quality obtained by this wiki likely to be Seth's original. Artists make their own decisions on how to best preserve their works. "Preservation" seems to be a code word for all illustrations in the novels should be "free to use" (i.e. upload anywhere you want) and "free to view" – even those that the copyright holder has never made "free to view" (and to my knowledge, none were made "free to use"). Another words, "preservation" seems to be a code word for the copyright holders', e.g. the illustrators', right don't matter.
While I'm not legally liable (which I'm not here), it's not my problem if someone wants to upload copyright images. But if they tell me they're doing the copyright holder a favor by uploading their works without even attribution, I'm going to call it BS because that's what it is in my opinion. It's not my job to stop them, but we're having a conversation exchanging opinions and that's my opinion.
While the one adding information also adding a source is ideal, the reality is, it doesn't always happen. It's kind of like people who litter. You could argue the one who litters is responsible for it, but many people litter anyway. If everyone had your attitude on "responsibility", and no one picked up other people's litter, then we'd be living in a garbage dump.
Besides, you often add  for things which should be easily findable, common knowledge or common sense when you really think about it. Not everything on a wiki needs or deserves a citation, so don't blame others because they don't always feel the need to source info since not everyone adheres to your standards or opinions about what needs a source or not.
If you feel something deserves to be cited, then it's wiki courtesy to at least try to find a source before adding a  template. By intentionally trying to avoid finding citations, especially in a situation where sources are readily available, your mentality is that of someone lazy and selfish.
Look, I don't know what your problem is. I'm not forcing you to do anything. When you've tagged my info with  (even though it was from the book), I didn't complain, I added the source. You act like a  tag is the end the world. You don't want to add sources, fine leave the tag, I'm not forcing you to do anything. But when I'm going through a page, and find items that should be sourced, I'll tag them as appropriate.
If something is not from the source material then it should have a source. If you think it's common sense to know a specific piece of trivia which isn't even from the source material, then you need to look up what common sense means. Neither is trivia common knowledge, it's literally trivia.
I don't litter, but I revert a LOT of vandalism across multiple wikis. So don't talk to me about doing my fair share. I do more than my fair share on this wiki and other wikis. Like every single volunteer on wikia, I do the work I choose to do. I spend a lot hours contributing to wikis. I'm sorry I don't spend my time doing tasks you want me to do, but you don't dictate my life. I don't complain that other users don't do enough or don't do the work I want them to do. I don't call them lazy and selfish. I don't tell their attitude & mentality is terrible. I don't attack them. I have better things to do.
It's a false equivalence. The difference is that I don't have time to scour through a 200-300 page book looking for a source (and if I don't know which book it is, it could be thousands of pages of the whole series), while it takes you like 5 seconds to Google "Neil Patrick Harris tattoo" and link one of like, 50 news articles about it. So yes, it really comes off as lazy.
You're also making a strawman. I never said Trivia is "common knowledge". I'm saying stuff like Neil Patrick Harris having a tattoo is well-known in the fanbase, and that it's common knowledge that the ASOUE TV series got a generally positive reception, despite a few negative reviews.
Your last paragraph basically explains your whole mentality. I'm not annoyed at you for "not doing your fair share" (since you view volunteer work in the mentality of "responsibility"), I'm annoyed at you for not having the courtesy/decency to do something relatively simple and easy, and when you're asked to please consider doing this, you get all defensive and say "NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY". How am I not supposed to think of someone who reacts like this as selfish and lazy? And please don't exaggerate. I'm not "attacking" you, I'm merely criticizing your style of editing.
Get off your high horse. I do my work. You do your work. You constantly write your thoughts & speculation as facts. You constantly refuse to use <ref> tags. You constantly write run-on sentences. You make a mess up references, leaving cite errors for other people to clean up. I don't complain that you lack the courtesy/decency not to make all those messes. I don't complain that your attitude and mentality is that your thoughts equate the majority of the fandoms' (which they don't). You called me lazy & selfish, that I lack courtesy & decency. You criticized my attitude and mentality. And then you claim that it's not an attack. Well, fix your own editing. I have better things to do then to deal with like you.