Why thank you ever so much for your very kind words. Don’t know what to say, only that it is so wonderful to now be able to be dedicated to further projects to improve ever more. Making things even nicer and sinking in details to more areas, top notch!
As it happens Fandom is publishing games so certainly worth a shot contacting them on Zendesk where at the top right Contact us would be best to make enquiries. So long as you have fun developing games, that is best!
Hello, I was wondering if you can help me change the website title into Jurassic Park Pedia Wiki instead Jurassic Park franchise wiki. So far when I change wordmark but it didn't change the website name it is still called jurassic-park-franchise.fandom.com.
Hello! Staff are able to change a web address/URL which can be viewed on the new Zendesk (the replacement for Special:Contact) area: Changes to a Wiki then I Want to Change a Wiki's Name or URL.
Do you remember the conversation we had about the Jurassic Park Franchise Wiki? About how as a duplicate wiki it is probably not best to invest time in it long term since that doesn't help? There were other wikis you could work on, The Good Dinosaur Wiki you mentioned for example that also allows you to practice developing what you like.
The other area to work on is providing evidence that you are remaining polite and working well with others.
Likely since it’s a new wiki with a small amount of content so isn’t appearing in search results. Which is actually good since you can head straight into designing and detailing the wiki which saves having to reserve an area to work on in case there is overlap with what other people are working on.
I can't do all of it by myself?
And why not? The time you spent writing you can’t do it could have been spent writing the description for a character, try doing that on The Good Dinosaur Wiki.
I know the conversation about Jurassic Park franchise wiki it all because of SayuriDarling idea to tell me to make another Jurassic Park wiki before that user completely blocked my original account for no reason. It was SayuriDarling fault.
I choosen to make a different jurassic park wiki to be away from the mean users BattleshipMan and CrashBash who rejected the evidences that I have founded for the Jurassic Park wiki but they refused.
I do, what do you need help with for The Good Dinosaur Wiki? And aren’t you happy you get to establish that wiki and detail it yourself to best support a series?
As a general good rule for life never complain or try and blame others, it does not actually do anything and certainly does not address any issue at hand. Also no more mentioning specific users, it can come across as unintentionally rude to discuss others behind their backs (would you like it?) Finally, remember to move forward not look for 'awful' things that happened in the past that don't even matter.
If someone wrote on The Good Dinosaur Wiki the differences between Arlo and real life Apatosaurus, you would have grounds for removing it not out of meanness, but because it’s not relevant to The Good Dinosaur movie. Same with certain additions of the Jurassic Park Wiki, your evidences have been judged by the community to not be relevant. Wikis are community efforts to amass the best content so move on from that to different pages that could benefit from detailing.
For the record that was no blaming the user left that message on my previous account to tell me to make another Jurassic Park wiki before it was blocked.
It was relevant but they refused to check the evidences on other articles and even on YouTube like Jurassic Park Amiga version, Jurassic Park Master System, and The Lost World: Jurassic Park Sega Game gear they erased for no reason on Jurassic Park wiki.
As the result I cannot help Jurassic Park wiki to be better detailed and I created a must better new Jurassic Park wiki to be away from the rude and stubborn users who rejected my edits and galleries for no reason.
That’s okay then, a new wiki was also suggested to be made but under the conditions that pages were to be merged, and demonstrate that good edits could be made. The franchise wiki was duplicated content though, and then the advice to create own wikis would be updated to stick with the original wiki in light of search engine optimization results since one large wiki is better than multiple smaller ones as was said before.
Not that it affects you having been afforded a chance to return to the Jurassic Park Wiki. Those are different topics to adding differences between the movie and real world dinosaurs, so suggest a community vote if you like. Otherwise there is plenty of content concerning everything about Jurassic Park so find another area there if you want to.
Remember not to name other people, what would be made if you came across someone saying "so long as I don't have Vazqjose1994 working on my wikis", is that nice? Besides also not necessary on a wiki building site, so developing further on working well with anyone and everyone is an additional goal.
Looking forward to seeing The Good Dinosaur Wiki expanded, the Forum is a good place to ask for any technical or design ideas you may have, enjoy!
You need to stop accusing users of being "mean" just because we don't agree on the same thing, Jose. After all, we did allow you back on the JP Wiki, even though we could have permanently banned you for sockpuppeting, and we did allow you to have your say on the Triceratops frill thing. Even though the vote didn't go your way, at least one other user still thought it was worth considering in the future, so it's not like nobody listened to you.
Now, I have not said anything mean to you in this thread, and I intend to keep it that way, but in return, you can't say anything mean to me here either. Starting now, we are putting all this behind us.
You're lying you are mean to me for calling me childish which I am not. All I did was edit more true information about the dinosaurs who are very to the originals but you erased for no reason. Also the T-Rex in the movie is inaccurate for seeing only movement and run up to 32 mph in real life there is no evidences to those two.
What did I just say, Jose? I clearly said " Now, I have not said anything mean to you in this thread, and I intend to keep it that way, but in return, you can't say anything mean to me here either. Starting now, we are putting all this behind us." That means neither of us can be mean to each other, you cannot say I am mean to you, and we cannot bring up past events....what we have said about each other in other threads is now irrelevant. Move on. That's the deal.
Also, the information you've said about the Tyrannosaurus is already in the article, so there's no need to include it again.
Right now you are trying to get away with it. You are still blocking me from Jurassic Park wiki so I refused to move on. I created my own wikis to be away from you and all the others who are not really thankful.
That's impossible. I am no longer an admin on the Jurassic Park wikia, and have not been for well over a month now, so I cannot block you. And you have already made edits on your current account anyway, so you know that isn't true.
I’m freaking sick and tired of this. I told you Vazquez, NO MORE going after CrashBash. And I told you give up the franchise wiki. Yet, you violated both conditions of our agreement. CrashBash talked to you on the JP wiki, and was very polite to you. Then, you change the name of the franchise wiki to The Park Pedia Wiki! Like copying the name of a whole other wiki is just OK?
Me, CrashBash, AND S3r0-Ph1i have been kind, patient, and respectful. You broke our agreement, and now I’m going to go straight to a FANDOM staff member to take care of this.
Yes, it could have, but the only thing that will stop this, is a ban, and a deletion of the wiki. I’m tired of this. Please contact the staff, telling them for a global ban. You were just a helpful trying to fix the issue as I was, but you need to not keep taking this lightly.
Choosing a more efficient use of time will do well. No further contact with Vazqjose1994 for a while, leave them to edit on the Jurassic Park Wiki, revert edits that the community agrees are not helpful for the wiki with a link to the one line reasoning.
Even if Vazqjose1994 adds unhelpful comments, which will not be done anymore as they have realised this is incorrect practice, they do not require any response.
Jose, the screenshot your using, is that of a I.P user account, that you found. I found the same account, banned the same day, as that one, and for the same reason. Your still unbanned on the JP wiki, Jose. You were never banned again.
"Even if Vazqjose1994 adds unhelpful comments... they do not require any response."
If it mattered, others can observe that accusations such as being mean, lying, are unfounded and certainly don't need long back and forth threads, for hypothetical examples: "this person is mean", "no I'm not", "yes you are", "that's thread number one million with nothing productive coming from it".
Vazqjose1994 wrote: Ok those were not incorrect even when I added the video games like Jurassic Park Amiga version and The Lost World: Jurassic Park Sega Game gear then all of a sudden it was erased for no reason.
If the community agrees that content is not needed, respect the wishes of the community and move on to developing other areas that need it.
Vazqjose1994 wrote: Right now I cannot help JP wiki ever. Like I said I created my own wiki to be away from users that don't listen to me.
But if someone added Daffy Duck information onto The Good Dinosaur Wiki you are working on and you removed it, then they said that you are not listening to them...
Wikis are community efforts and if information is not needed, then work on areas that need support instead. Presumably you like Jurassic Park and everything in it? Then work on making the larger established wiki better, supporting and detailing the series itself is the most important thing, and creating a new wiki does not really achieve that.
Concluded: any edits to Triceratops in that area can be undone, link to the decision, no need for further discussion.
Accusations about one another lying are not constructive, especially when misunderstandings can occur. It is worth calmly looking into Vazqjose1994's banned IP address that was raised before, and then moving forward initiating a community vote on areas that need to be added to the Jurassic Park Wiki.
Again, if the Jurassic Park community vote information is not required, that is fine, Vazqjose1994 you are free to add to other areas; there is a new movie scheduled after all.
You shouldn't even by using your old I.P. account anyway. You have an account right now, that you are using to reply to this comment. Use it.
Y'know what, no, if you're going to keep up this behaviour, I'm going to have to put my foot down and talk to the others about actually banning you from the JP wikia, again. Of course you'll just keep insisting that you have no fault in it, but this whole thread has made it clear that you have no intention on admitting to your past mistakes or working as a team...you're too conceded to be on the wikia, in my opinion.
I've been very patient, but this is as far as this goes. Consider this strike 1.
I’m banning Jose for real, so forget that. Me and the rest of the other users will just let Jose create his wiki, because no one seems to care that it is a violation. I was hoping I could get some real help, but sadly, it seems Jose will just be given more and more chances.
And Crash, just unfollow this post, and all of Jose’s messages, were just going to have to let him run free. Sucks, but I doubt a resolution will come.
Real help was being provided in that a user could have returned to the wiki to take part. The community vote on a topic and settling on that outcome, with no further discussion from anyone remains the best new procedure. The Jurassic Park Pedia remains but that is fine as a practice wiki, it being open certainly isn't hurting anyone and hopefully now moving forward everyone is at least happy editing once more.
For changing a web address the answer was provided at the start.
Vazqjose1994 wrote: I agree with you so I can be practicing my own wiki.
The Good Dinosaur Wiki is the place for practicing, and developing a wiki that needs to be developed. Not sure how a duplicate Jurassic Park Wiki is conductive to supporting a series, but you get to make the decision, make it a good one.
Vazqjose1994 it is still the case that the best outcome is to delete the Jurassic park franchise wiki, apologize for all the needless grating, and no more "this person is mean", "I need to add edits that don't help the wiki" and so forth. On the other side for now also no more grating, no need to call out what may be perceived as micro aggressions since it can come across as multiple people piling on one user. The better response is to point them to the community decision on a matter and no more non-constructive messages, even if they are in response to those that come across as dishonest. The best communities do not look for faults in other users, instead combine their efforts to make a wiki ever better to support a series.
Opinions change over time, so closing the franchise wiki, having a break from Jurassic Park in general by focusing on The Good Dinosaur Wiki is the best outcome for now.
See what we've been dealing, S3r0-Ph1i? I understand you're trying to help mandate things, but now you see what the issue with Vazqjose1994 really is. He created his own JP wiki knock-off just to spite us. Even though we tried to be polite him, he threw a belligerent temper tantrum at us and made such relentless faulty accusations at us (mainly CrashBash). He was adding irrelevant info on the Jurassic Park wiki and he continued with his biased beliefs. His disruptive behavior in trying to get the staff to help him out (which the staff knew better ) was one of the reasons his original account was globally blocked. Vazqjose1994 will probably tell you that we're lying about him, which are very untrue. S3r0-Ph1i, this guy loves to blame everyone, but himself and doesn't see wrong in his doing. I thought I should let you know that.
I think it's time to end this thread also because it might continue to go downhill from there.
From this thread a lot of the messaging does seem to be circular, but does it really matter to you if someone creates a wiki to spite someone somehow, acts the way described, and makes false accusations that no one believes? Let it be done, see if you care, right?
The new approach has polls made if information is debatable as described. If the ‘worst case’ scenario occurs and someone dreadfully says you are being mean, sure it’s all fun and games to wade in the mud with them arguing, but it’s even more fun to detail a wiki of something you presumably like.
Arguing with someone, or not even looking at that to focus on what you like, which one should be chosen.
I'm not using banned card. Did you looked at my Screenshot today. I'm am not lying.
I refused to edit JP wiki. You need apologize to me.
You are lying, and we do NOT need to apologise to you....YOU need to apologise to us for your childish behaviour and refusal to listen to us.
Did you not even stop to think that, maybe, the reason you thought you were banned was because you used an IP address that had been banned previously, and then when you tried to log in, it for whatever reason listed you as banned because it thought you were the IP user trying to use a loophole? Because the fact of the matter is, you were not banned at all until Carnotaur banned you for your aforementioned childish behaviour.
Oh, hi there nice to hear from you again. Whilst I declared that it is proper to close the duplicate wiki, I did not actually say that it was closed or that I myself would contact staff to close it. After the successful negotiations people could return to the Jurassic Park Wiki and the people who are looking after it, they are the ones who would contact staff to close the duplicate wiki. If I asked for the wiki to be closed whilst the discussions were taking place, probably not helpful. You would know best when everything is fine once more and the right time to send the request. Even then staff have quite a lot going on so patience would be nice until they are able to close it down, thanks and all the best.
Ps well done on your successful endeavours, you chose the right path, achieved the best outcome, be pleased.
Hello Vazqjose1994, it would nice to help you of course but it cannot be for duplicate wikis. How impressive would it be to turn things around? To avoid being global banned for using what would be termed sockpuppet accounts to edit on duplicated wikis where one is banned… no, that will simply not do. Closing the duplicate wiki and working on sites where you are not banned in order to demonstrate that you are there to make a wiki as good as it can be, within the working rules of a wiki is a much more preferable outcome. It is a exalted sign of maturity being able to make amends for disruption caused, even if you did not mean it.
Concerning your ban, blocks are not bestowed as a punishment for a user. Neither are they given to show superiority or administered out of malice. Blocks are used to protect article pages and end edit disputes, a time out of sorts remember some edits work better than others.
I am uncertain of your interactions with other users, but my word is law. So, what you are to do is cease editing these duplicate wikis, they are to be closed so why add content that is to go down on the ship. Would recommend to edit wikis that you are not banned on. I can help you with foundational areas of wikis with long term value, infoboxes, templates, manual of styles and the like. If your wiki has a lot of images I can help you with my bot to add them to categories and include licensing templates. Heck, I can teach how to make a JS bot (the best kind!) if that is helpful.
But you need to work on amending past transgressions. Do you recall this successful outcome for yourself? That seemed to be the much nicer scenario. If admins are explaining to you that categories for dinosaurs are not needed then that is welcome guidance. Categories need to be right since they are used to help with navigation purposes, they are included on a wikis mobile main page so probably not ideal to disrupt them.
Regarding the galleries I will help you with them back here so long as you promise to not add duplicate images to duplicated wikis, rather create galleries on different wikis where you are not banned. That and you also make amends with other users on wikis you are currently blocked on as you would presumably like to return, and the wiki would like you to help improve it the right way.
Article Talk Pages, Message Walls, Discussions, all are helpful for discussing the intrinsic details and always good to do so for the pages to have the best details, but discuss in a constructive manner with other people.
That is one area as well, if time is needed to come to a decision, simply edit in other spaces in the meantime.
You are right they are all dinosaurs but the categorization is to help break them up in a certain way. You could add 'scaly' as a category to those of which they all are. If they were all red dinosaurs you could add 'red coloured' as a classification but adding them to 'Dinosaur', 'Scaly', or 'Red Coloured' categories are not likely helpful for the wiki, the required categories are used in a certain way.
In this case see the Dinosaur category and how it is being used? It covers further dinosuar genus groups and for the case of Tyrannosaurus the category leads to this category containing them all.
Um, nearly there, the explanation was that 'Dinosaur', and similarly too obvious to the point they are not needed like 'Scaly', or 'Red Coloured' categories are not required.
What it means is that with categories there and established you should discuss with other users as to whether a new category is needed before adding it. If it is removed sometimes a stubborn unhelpful practice known as 'edit warring' can occur, but the best users choose better use of their time than that. Talk it out that is the ideal way, and if you feel the additional category is needed, show why it's useful!
By contacting staff you can ask about the blocked Fandom account and request that the duplicate wiki be closed. Editing well on other wikis will show you are there to take part constructively, all good steps to removing your current bans on wikis, have fun!
This Jurassic Park franchise Wiki needs to be sent to staff to close since it is a duplicate of an established Jurassic Park Wiki. By doing that you can show you are taking the correct steps to becoming unbanned on the established Jurassic Park Wiki, which is what you would like?
As for other wikis where you are not banned, by all means add pages and expand the information on them, you got that covered?
Edit well in uncontested areas, there are many different people on wikis so if there is uncertainty all you can do is explain how the edit is helpful but also be willing to accept that some edits are not. Like with here edits such as those with adding screenshots with subtitles were not helpful for a wiki. Adding the 'Dinosaur' category on the Jurassic Park Wiki was not helpful for that wiki.
1) both these cases could have been better if you had discussed making these edits with community members on each wiki. 2) yes you are right to edit, but both cases show a need to edit well. Simply comes down to asking when unsure and willing to listen to guidance from those who have experience in what works well for a wiki.
Yes but CureHibiki erased the article of young girl who is Doctor Traum's daughter who was only seen in a flashback and family photo in episode 40 and 47 which is very important for the series to see who it is.
Plus I also found that Lambeosaurus was seen in a concept art for the Visitor Center meaning that it was cut from the Jurassic Park but somehow it was erased for no reason too.
There would have been reasons for both, providing sources for your edits is always handy.
Also a good idea to create you own wiki. It cannot be a duplicate wiki, but it can be a wiki for a series that does not have one. That may be helpful for learning new areas as well as adding content you feel is useful for the site.
It can be called 'Jurassic Park franchise Wiki', 'Jurassic Park Movies Wiki', 'The Dinosaurs from Jurassic Park Wiki' the problem is these wikis would have duplicated content from the established Jurassic Park Wiki here.
No need to create multiple different wikis on a subject, instead have one large one covering everything. The second issue is taking content from the larger wiki and adding it to other ones. The smaller duplicate wikis including the Jurassic Park franchise wiki should be closed, but you are free to create and detail wikis for anything that does not have one.
Think of everything you like, check if there is a wiki for it, if not, good! Always nice to put in the effort to expand on a series to support it and you can learn some handy things, have fun as well, it's got everything going for it!
Vazqjose1994 wrote: How to make a large covering to it?
Would you mind rephrasing this? If you ask the question in a different way it might be clearer to answer.
If pages are being made for the purpose of merging then a few ideas are worth presenting. It's not about proving that you are right, rather if you show how a page could be better you could present that to admins of wikis you are blocked on. If the content is beneficial it would certainly be fair to ask to be unblocked to improve the article on the established wiki.
The pages for Jurassic Park wiki are Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Pachycephalosaurus, Amargasaurus, Lambeosaurus, Triceratops, The Lost World: Jurassic Park Sega Game gear, Jurassic Park Master System, Jurassic Park Amiga version, and many more.
Okay with the dinosaurs themselves stick with one to demonstrate improvements, Tyrannosaurus for example. Now on the Jurassic Park Wiki there are different pages for each iteration, one for the creature overall, another for a film version for example.
Suggest additions to improve a page, for instance a video games section. What would your 'Jurassic Park Master System' page look like and is it helpful for the established wiki?
The idea is to basically ask whether your additions are going to make the page better on the Jurassic Park Wiki and can you be unblocked to improve the page if agreed. Work well with other people and accept feedback, everyone is after making the articles as good as can be remember.
Those are good ideas, first it is better to work with people on the wiki so if you suggest to an admin that you create this page for the Jurassic Park Master System and gain screenshots, could the information then be added to the Jurassic Park Wiki.
For facts you would need sources to include in the references for a page. For example show your evidence to an admin like 'the clones are able to run 15 to 25 mph, here is the source which states this'.
But in the movie they said T-rex reach 32 mph while in real life they can only 15-25 mph in which the clones reach normal speed they reach over it.
Another example it the adult Triceratops have triangular epoccipitals on their frills and two cheek horns as they are seen in the movie but in the real life they adults don't have them the triangular epoccipitals can only be found on young and juveniles and the Triceratops only have one cheek horn in real life as well.
Just how the clone Dilophosaurus in the was so different to the originals like it has a neck frill and shoot poison but it was false.
"According to founder and former CEO of InGen John Hammond, the cloned T. rex could run at speeds of 32 mph." Movie wins, these are movie Jurassic Park dinosaurs not the real life ones. Same with Velociraptors the creatures in the movie are more akin to the larger Deinonychus, in fact frog DNA is used in Jurassic Park dinosaurs as a means of allowing them to live, same with extracting DNA from mosquitoes, that is the reality in the films and have the relevant sources. Yes in real life the Dilophosaurus could not shoot poison, but it can in Jurassic Park land!
Your type of observations might be useful on a dinosaur wiki on the historical real world specimens but the Jurassic Park Wiki concerns the dinosaurs and their background from that universe.
Your Josevazq1994 account that you closed down yourself was the account blocked, Vazqjose1994 has never been blocked since it has not been on the wiki.
Vazqjose1994 wrote: But for how long until I get blocked again?
Vazqjose1994 would be blocked immediately and likely permanently since it would be classed as a sock-puppet account being used to try and bypass a block. Remember blocks apply to you the person who performed the wrong doing not to accounts you make, so do not edit on wikis you are banned on not on any account!
Where you are concerned it is to show how your edits can help so that the admins can see that your behaviour has changed for the better, that your edits are useful for a wiki and there the better chance that you could have the ban applied to you lifted and hopefully return to the wiki.
Your image additions are nice however and can hopefully be appreciated as adding value to the pages. For areas like the categories and facts on real life dinosaurs, again best if discussed with other users before adding since there may be specific areas for them.
Bear in mind that the facts you stated are true for real world dinosaurs, but not for the movie ones. As for feeling that others are not listening to reason as you see it, it may in fact be a perspective thing. You are correct about the real world dinosaurs, the wiki is right about the movie ones and the Jurassic Park Wiki concerns itself with the latter.
Galleries are always nice, if you had suggestions for other improvements for pages post them here on Community Central and check they are what the wiki needs before adding. Best an admin gives the go ahead to return before heading back in.
Yes but not only that there are more differences between the clones in the movies and video games to their real life counterparts like Carnotaurus, Stegosaurus, Parasaurolophus, Sinoceratops, Allosaurus, Baryonyx, Spinosaurus, Mosasaurus, Gallimimus, Pteranodon, Compsognathus, Ankylosaurus, Troodon, and many more.
Another thing inaccurate about T-rex and Pachycephalosaurus is that T-rex can only see moment which it is false as well like you said about frog DNA caused it and Pachycephalosaurus in both the concept art depicted to standing upright which is not true as well.
Let’s try seeing it from a different angle, the dinosaurs are not inaccurate in the movie, what the movie says is what goes.
What you likely mean is yes the movie takes its own liberties, the dinosaurs are different to the real ones they are based on. So again, ask would it be helpful to the Jurasssic Park Wiki if there was an area for each dinosaur where you could show the differences, for example: Dilophosaurus are able to spit venom, something they could not do in real life.
OK when you said the dinosaurs in the movie are not inaccurate which does not make any sense.
For example the Sinoceratops in the movie has 2 holes on it's frill but in real life all ceratopsians including Sinoceratops have flesh covering the whole frill and Carnotaurus in the movie shows it has elbows on it's arms but in real life it doesn't.
What about the other video games like The Lost World: Jurassic Park Sega Game gear, Jurassic Park Master System, and Jurassic World Amiga they need to added as well.
If that is helpful for the wiki so be it! Best if you plan the articles, present them here on Community Central (not on the Jurassic Park Wiki you as a person are currently banned remember) and see if they are required for the wiki.
Type it, but first you need to find out if the wiki even needs that content, such as a differences between the movie and real world dinosaurs section on articles. Remember that wikis are community projects, what you feel is best may not be for the wiki overall.
Internal wiki matters are each wikis own concern, if you had to block someone on a wiki should they even be on the wiki adding galleries unless given the clear that they could return?
This is why I need to create Jurassic Park franchise wiki.
By all means practice yet that site would eventually be closed and still better if you make your suggestions here on Community Central. For example present information on the ‘Jurassic Park Master System’ if that is helpful can that be added, and this can demonstrate you are now focused on adding constructive edits, and willing to work better with others namely accepting feedback in a civil, non-confrontational manner.
Truly though, the best advice would be to simply find a different wiki to edit. The Jurassic Park Wiki thankfully already has plenty of contributors and there are so many underdeveloped wikis, or series that do not have one at all that could benefit from expansion.
Yes the mean user CrashBash should be block from Jurassic Park wiki for erasing galleries that is really unnecessary.
I believe that showing the difference between the movie and reality dinosaur counterparts are meant to be part of Jurassic Park wiki besides they already showed the differences on Brachiosaurus, Carnotaurus, Parasaurolophus, Ankylosaurus, and many more.
It was the user SayuriDarling idea to tell me make another wiki of Jurassic Park in the first place before she starts blocking my username for nothing.
You feel people should be blocked for something, others feel that you should be blocked for something else, is blocking the right answer? As you can attest to we do not want anyone blocked from wikis, not other users, not yourself, rather everyone should take part adding constructively, getting along well and enjoying themselves contributing to something long standing.
I believe that showing the difference between the movie and reality dinosaur counterparts are meant to be part of Jurassic Park wiki besides they already showed the differences on Brachiosaurus, Carnotaurus, Parasaurolophus, Ankylosaurus, and many more.
In that case it might be worth adding an example of text to be added to the wiki by someone else. Find a dinosaur that does not have a differences section, and write it on this Community Central Wiki. You mentioned this: "the Sinoceratops in the movie has 2 holes on it's frill but in real life all ceratopsians including Sinoceratops have flesh covering the whole frill". Ask on Community Central is this useful information to be added to the article pages as is the case with Brachiosaurus and the others and if so may someone add it to the articles. This could support the article pages which is most important and is in your favour for showing improved conduct.
Making an own Jurassic Park franchise wiki may have been good for practice, and showing example pages like Jurassic World Amiga that could be merged if they are helpful, but not a long term wiki to work on. Regarding you feeling that your username was banned for nothing, do you maybe feel that you were banned for creating other accounts to bypass a block? Remember sockpuppeting - creating a different account to try and get around a block is against the rules.
Is there a pre-existing The Good Dinosaur Wiki made and are you blocked on it? If not, The Good Dinosaur Wiki you created sounds like a good project to develop if you wanted to. That may be a more productive use of your time.
Despite this my account was block for no reason of all wikis no reason by SayuriDarling and it got expired but some reason I'm still block. This is the reason SayuriDarling does not listen to me either.
Sockpuppet accounts tend to get banned indefinitely, people would use their actual accounts after the block had expired so no need for such additional accounts that were being used to break the rules.
With this block across 'all wikis', was that related to your 'Fandom user' account?
But I also need Fandom user to be unblock already.
That is the IP address/random numbers that appears for someone who is not logged into an account. That is what you were supposed to ask staff about since it sounds like a global block in which case only they can look into that.
So The Good Dinosaur wiki needs more editing.
An excellent idea, on the conditions that there is not a pre-existing one and you are not blocked on it. If not, then absolutely, by all means work on detailing everything concerning The Good Dinosaur!
Yes The Good Dinosaur wiki needs more on the characters.
But right now I'm doing my best stay away from the mean users from Jurassic Park wiki and prefer continuing editing Jurassic Park franchise wiki for Jurassic Park Master System, Jurassic Park Amiga version, and The Lost World Jurassic Park Sega Game gear as well as adding more galleries for dinosaurs including their differences between the movie and reality counterparts.
Also in Heroes and Villains wiki there is another troublesome user name Aaronhardy5 who keeps on removing the capitalize letters for Maisie Lockwood.
The temperament of others does not really matter, kind users, mean users – not important it’s whether they can take part well in constructing a wiki. You are moving forward so nothing more about ‘mean’ users from your point of view, just as there should be nothing about your past behaviour so long as it has changed for the better. Reset, improve, do not dwell on the past, create the future.
Also in Heroes and Villains wiki there is another troublesome user name Aaronhardy5 who keeps on removing the capitalize letters for Maisie Lockwood.
Internal wiki matters are each wikis own concern
If there is problem behaviour on wikis it will be found and made better, go for this one below:
Vazqjose1994 wrote: Yes The Good Dinosaur wiki needs more on the characters.
The great thing about wikis that no other site does really, is to delve into the fine tune details on the content in question. Complete information on the characters, animation, story, well everything. Create an encyclopedia to give a thorough grounding in a subject, enjoy!
Sure I do, on some wiki somewhere there are edits that are either improving the pages or shall be undone. Happens all the time everywhere and is of no concern to you. All you can do is focus on improving the areas you can and The Good Dinosaur Wiki allows you to do that.
If you would like to reply further, whether it was intentional or not for other wikis that you are banned on are you sorry for the trouble caused and would you stick to guidance that others give you to improve the wiki?
OK, listen to me Jose...this whole "everyone is in the wrong except for me" needs to stop. We were not "being mean" to you. We tried to reason with you several times. But you refused to listen to us and acted really immaturely when we tried to explain ourselves.
It's clear you still intend on painting us as the bad guys even though we were just trying to help you. Let all of this silly nonsense go.
You are the one who is immature and you never saw any video games and remove galleries, so this means you are the one that can't be reasoned with. You are refusing to learn more about dinosaurs inaccuracies in the movie.
Unfortunately I know better than you. So this means that you and everyone in Jurassic Park wiki need to apologize to me and you edit back my galleries and info about them.
CrashBash wrote: But you refused to listen to us and acted really immaturely when we tried to explain ourselves.
It's clear you still intend on painting us as the bad guys even though we were just trying to help you.
Unfortunately I know better than you. So this means that you and everyone in Jurassic Park wiki need to apologize to me and you edit back my galleries and info about them.
Let’s move on from these, both with past transgressions, and notions of superiority amongst people. Focusing on what you can achieve together is much nicer. With images, dinosaur inaccuracies and all edits it is what works best for a wiki so discuss matters civilly. In fact doesn’t it sound much better to begin with a clean slate?
Vazqjose1994 you received quite an enticing offer to be able to return to the main wiki. Whether you meant it or not, your past behaviour and the current attitude could be better for yourself and the wiki, and the following is a great start: The advice is to say sorry, welcome guidance on what works best for a wiki from other users and enjoy taking part well once more.
You do not have to apologize and move forward if you do not want to. But if you do not apologize and move forward you likely will not be allowed back on the Jurassic Park Wiki.
What other users do is the business of the wiki they are on. I am trying to get you unblocked of which there is a chance for you to do so. Are you trying to get unblocked to return to the Jurassic Park Wiki? A simple “I’m sorry I would like to return and edit well on the wiki” says it all.
You are the one who is immature
Oops, your argument is invalid.. Stop resorting to insulting people.....that is the literal definition of "immature".
I will stress this again....none of us need to apologise to you. You need to apologise to us for being rude and condescending. I have already tried to explain to you, in great detail, why things you wrote were not relevant. We could have moved on easily, but you refused to listen and threw a temper tantrum.
The issue isn't that it's not true, the issue is that it's not relevant. The fact that Triceratops had things on its frill really has no relevance in the long run. That is the sort of thing you need to stop obsessing over. As S3r0 says, you need to let these things go and move on with your life. Stop insisting you're better than everyone and start contributing as a team, listening to what other people have to say...and stop holding petty grudges.
(also, I removed your images because I suspected you were deliberately sockpuppeting, there is a difference)
You are wrong adult Triceratops don't have triangular epoccipitals on their frills in reality only young and juveniles have them.
So you will never learn about these animals in real life.
Stop being so immature. You have been told this numerous times now and yet you still haven't learnt a thing.
I will say this one more time...the whole Triceratops thing is not relevant. Move on from this obsession of yours, please. For everyone's sake. If you quit this behaviour and stop being rude to people, then I'm sure you'll be welcomed back.
Are you even listening to a word I'm saying? That's not the issue here...the issue here is that it is not relevant and you keep getting obsessed over it.
Oh, and yes, you are being immature - saying things like "Unfortunately that you are stubborn" is literally the definition of "being immature".
I am not going to listen to a word you say if you keep behaving in this way. You need to improve your behaviour and attitude. I am giving you more than enough chances...right now, the burden falls to you to act maturely in this situation. Calm down, stop talking to me in a condescending manner and then we'll talk.
Hello, everyone. A few things to say as a discussions moderator here.
1. I can see that the discussion is getting heated. It's best to remain polite and patient, as a hostile atmosphere is going to make discussions become more aggressive and rude (like calling out for stubbornness and immaturity).
2. I also don't see a resolution coming as of now. A thread this long would be in its concluding stages where the best solution has been formed, but it might not be. Feel free to prove me wrong with the next comments, but this thread may have to be closed if the discussion remains heated.
That's about it. I wish you all the best. Message me if you have more questions about my comment. Otherwise, focus on each other!
Unfortunately CrashBash is right now lying.
Since this user refuses to check the evidences that I have founded. But he is so stubborn to read the information and he is so immature. I am too smart for the user.
You don't seem to understand that this is exactly the reason why you were banned...your extremely rude behaviour. I am not going to listen to you until you drop this act and actually listen to what people tell you. As I have explained to you already, the issue isn't that I haven't read the information, the issue is that it isn't relevant. That is my thoughts and you need to understand that.
Don't be helping Vazqjose1994 on his own JP wiki. When he was Josevazq1994, he is disruptive and he is beyond your suggestions to us earlier. He was blocked in the Jurassic Park wiki because he was adding questionable, speculative material and refused to be reasoned with. That's what got him blocked in the first place. Then he became disruptive and he kept complaining to the Fandom staff, accusing the admins in the Jurassic Park wiki of being mean to him, which is untrue and was just making excuses. The Fandom staff knew not to listen to his excuses, kept telling him to move on because of his constant complaints and refusing to listen about his block on it and they globally banned him because of that. He made Vazqjose1994 as a sockpuppet account just to evade his ban and created the two wikis, Jurassic Park franchise wiki and the Good Dinosaurs wiki just to spite the wikis he was banned in. He will says things to you about his blocks based on his biased beliefs and excuses, which are untrue, and he will tell you not to listen to the admins of the Jurassic Park wikis about it. I thought I tell you that.
Hello BattleshipMan and Carnotaur, thank you for raising this issue. First, sorry to hear that there seems to have been some could be better incidents. For the stated account, it has been shown that behaviour can be improved as demonstrated in this example.
Carnotaur wrote: If he wants to be on a JP wiki, he should come back, say he's sorry, and help contribute for real.
And so this is certainly the best outcome for all. Regarding the duplicate wiki, it is a simple matter that it does require closing as explained.
Whatever Vazqjose1994 told you about the admins of Jurassic Park wiki is untrue. When he was Josevazq1994, he became confrontational and disruptive when we undid his edits and was acting childish (he would say that he wasn't and we were, which is incorrect). He kept obsessively accusing the admins of the Jurassic Park of being mean, which is not true. He refused to be reasoned with and kept insisting he was right, which he never was. We have our own rules about dinosaurs in movie world and real world. Also, we had a history of barrage spamming and vandalism of that wiki. He kept complaining about how troublesome we are, which he is just untrue accusations and the Fandom Staff kept telling to stop making accusations and move on to another wiki since they don't deal with local admins, which he blatantly and defiantly refused to accept. That's what's been going on. I thought you should know that.
That kind of sweeps the topic under the rug. The focus may not be the people, but it’s the community that keeps it running. And having a person trying to create his own wiki, and making a sock-puppet account(Which, mind you, is call for a ban). I’m sure BM(and every other JP-wiki user)will agree.
Still, the JPF wiki is not needed, it NEEDS to be shut down. He is making it out of his disposition with us. I do wish he could come back, and help the fandom, but he would probably just do it all again.
Carnotaur wrote: That kind of sweeps the topic under the rug.
What certain users say about other admins or anything concerning other people doesn’t matter to me. Best practice to remain neutral and focus on how to improve the wikis themselves, that is why I asked if those pages would be helpful. If a member of the community can create good articles for a wiki better they do that rather than be banned.
Still, the JPF wiki is not needed, it NEEDS to be shut down.
Interesting, though the Vazqjose1994 account does not appear to have been used to avoid blocks by editing on wikis that Josevazq1994 is banned on, Vazqjose1994 is instead taking part on different wikis.
Still since you came to me with this, rather than end in them being banned further, inviting them to take part well on the wikis they enjoy is what I would suggest.
Recommend ways where they can improve the pages, show examples of how the articles are supposed to look, that would be really nice for them.
I did that with his old account, and he refused to listen to a word that was said to him, which is why he got banned in the first place. He then spent the rest of his time complaining about it on the Community Wiki, generally being rude, which is what got him banned completely.
And I see he's STILL complaining about being banned on other wikis too, so clearly he's learnt nothing. Also he's very deliberately making wikis that are entirely based on the wikis he has been banned from too, which supports this.
Quite simply put, he is beyond your suggestions.
EDIT: Also, no, he IS using that account to avoid blocks by editing on wikis he was banned on. It's just it doesn't show up as blocked because his original account was disabled.
I'm in an agreement with CrashBash. Vazqjose1994 is Josevazq1994 and he's ban evading. He is generally very rude and disruptive. Whenever we block him for his disruptive, childish behavior and making questionable edits, he complains about his blocks to the Community wiki for no reason, accusing the admins of the Jurassic Park wiki were being mean, which is untrue and they know better than to listen his excuses. He created his own JP franchise just to deliberately make it based on the wikis he was banned on, which supports claims that he is ban evading with a sockpuppet account.
There is little point in having multiple wikis on the same topic both for Search Engine Optimisation purposes, and copyright issues with duplicated content. This Jurassic Park franchise Wiki is probably best to be closed which may be achieved by sending it to staff via the new request form or by emailing:
With that wiki closed, User:Vazqjose1994 has demonstrated that they can improve their conduct, and assuming good faith aside their constructive edits there should be helpful for the established Jurassic Park wiki. Guidance on how to edit better such as telling them what they can do seems to be the most appropriate method, so can only encourage this matter to be resolved amicably.
We've tried that. But he absolutely refuses to listen to a word we say. Four of us (I.E. members of the actual Jurassic Park wiki) have tried to explain to him quite recently why the links he provided "proving" details of the upcoming Jurassic World 3 aren't reliable and he threw a temper tantrum over it. He is literally incapable of listening to reason.
Hello again, try a different approach if you like. Rather than extended dialogue involving multiple people, a simple “if there is no reliable source it will be removed from the wiki” from one person could work, take it to a community vote if information is debatable.
Bypasses entirely any opportunities others may be looking for to feel slighted. Much more concise and time efficient as well.
No need to focus on behaviours, you are after facts for the wiki and if people do not have facts then they have the wrong number. Could also suggest pages that can be developed further as well for others to work on.
Is the content added valuable for the wiki? Either way one method is to reduce contact between the user for a while and allow them free reign on the wiki. That enables you to devote yourselves to other areas, let them add what is wanted constructively speaking and just prune it later so long as it makes the page better overall. Collaboration is key!
He doesn't understand the meaning of the word "collaboration", he just wants his way all the time. We've told him, quite bluntly, several times, that no, his information is not valuable because it's NOT reliable. But he's too egotistical to understand that.
Heck, we even held a vote based on one detail he wanted to add, which ended in a 4-2 decision on not adding it - I.E. one other user did agree with him in adding it. He, of course, threw a tantrum.
CrashBash wrote: We've told him, quite bluntly, several times, that no, his information is not valuable because it's NOT reliable.
This one is good but let’s trim the ‘several times’ down to one time. A single response that the information is not reliable, the poll settles it if it does need to be voted on, onto other areas.
If there are negative reactions to an outcome, pay it no mind. No need for further explanation, the answer has already generously been provided and a back and forth is an unproductive use of time than can be invested into something nicer.
“The community has voted that this information is not reliable, but we can revisit this matter at a later date if new sources come to light. Meanwhile these pages could benefit from development.”
The first part for the decision, one answer nothing more to be said but a chance it could be reopened should reduce any possible indignation. Even better it is not a roadblock “you cannot do this”, recommending pages makes it a guiding “try this instead if you like” which also helps a wiki.
That's pointless, he won't listen. He'll just launch into another "SHUT UP, I AM THE RIGHT, YOUR SO STUPID!!" as he always does.
You act like he's redeemable, but he isn't. Trust us...he will NEVER improve. He will NEVER listen.
Exactly. He's not what you would call a role model who needs a learn a thing or two. He is constantly disruptive and belligerent. He is full of himself. He thinks he's knows best about the Jurassic Park wiki, but he's not. He adds irrelevant information that doesn't consists to the in-universe connection to that franchise. He throws temper tantrums every time we overrule him and makes incessant accusations at the admins of the Jurassic Park wiki of being mean and lying, which are untrue. Your efforts, which appreciative, are not helping mandate things with him. He is beyond reason and his attitude will never improve. He made that sockpuppet account just to evade his ban from his original account.
Always nice to not settle into nonworking habits, once an agreement has been reached by the community such as deciding to not add irrelevant information to article pages (suggest such content go in blogs, Discussions or other user areas instead) here is what will be different: do not be the wall users may want to be aggressive with.
Once a verdict has been reached, users can protest the community decision but no one is under any obligation to respond to it. No need for counter claims or long threads of could be better conversations, just a link on the words "community consensus, move onto other areas" to lead to the reasoning, like “The community has voted that this information is not reliable, but we can revisit this matter at a later date if new sources come to light. Meanwhile these pages could benefit from development.” for example.
Certainly avoids the protracted messages that do not seem too helpful; "this matter has been closed, see here, post your content in blogs if you like" will certainly save a lot of time and sets an improved tone.
Remember portraying anyone in a certain manner may lead to them adopting exactly those traits as a sign of recognition, such as playing along that they are incapable of listening to reason. No need to mention it.
CrashBash wrote: incapable of listening to reason.
Then don’t reason, once a decision is made that is it, everyone can move into other things. Can you think of any threads where virtually all the messages could have been reduced to one: “decision reached”, end of?
S3r0-Ph1i, you don't know how belligerent and possessive he is. He is full of himself and is not capable of listening to others about what's best for the Jurassic Park wiki. He is relentless on his own belief and he loves to make false accusations on the admin of the Jurassic Park wiki for no reason, other than his own irrelevant beliefs.
No problem, once the community has reached a consensus, if edits go against that they can be undone with a link to the decision as to why. Nothing else is required, not descriptions of user behaviour, no long back and forth threads, you show the better more efficient working method!
Oh it’s like that is it? If you want to get the quotes out it’s not going to out well for you mwaha XD seen my response for that part? And remember supporting wikis is good, even if I were out to promote!
How’s restoring your thread coming along? Hurry now since staff confirmed it was on topic and definitely require their replies.
It’s okay I’ll get answers for the both of us; no need to thank me I’m just that good!
Don’t you forget it, that’s exactly it! Wait what? Child grab your crayons, grab your juice beaker “any angle” covers them all, how on earth does that mean limited angles?
I do hope you get your answer, but I'm not exactly sure what it will be.
Yes, of course you hope that, and you closed the thread stopping me from getting my answer to demonstrate that profound sense of hope. Cheers mate some friend you are, hands down the frontrunner for best buddy of the year XD
The sheer thought of the possibility of having your thread derailed must have generated intense umbrage never seen before, toys were thrown out there pram, your tantrum was on another scale. Though I was backing up your own point about the topic (and haven’t you noticed? We’ve both got our answer) even if I were derailing your post, let me have it!
If I could get assistance with my matter what's the harm in that? I would want the best for you and this should be reciprocated, that is much better than your current stance of: “not on my life are you getting help over me (you were getting help as well) I’ll burn the bridge down before that happens, WATCH ME!”
So resolute were you take us all down with you when you felt you couldn’t have your way. You know what your recent theatrics are the final straw, “we’re done” doesn’t even describe it, don’t even bother coming home tonight Fandyllic the locks WILL be changed!
Just kidding I’d never do that. On a more serious matter, Fandyllic there is never a point of no return, I know you know what you done was wrong but it is not too late to do the right thing, to restore your thread. You know this is the right course, we and others were all after the same info, but with that thread down the poor staff can’t even answer.
If you still assume the worst rather than the best and are still convinced I’m some thread hijacking, wiki promoting lunatic with “limited angles” (Fandyllic, why?) then I’ll make a thread, you can hijack that yourself, anything for you,
Have you found the original? That duplicate one I didn't write, I found: "But that doesn't means that you need to state on purpose..." though I didn't state the changed information. I've also just seen that it was a new page created so it couldn't be undone.
Like I say the other one was a new page so it wasn't something to be undone. Did you also think I wrote the first line for the duplicate? I didn't "state" it on purpose, didn't write that at all and only noticed it had been added after I finished my thanks reply. I've reported this in the special contact link since bug or not it's vandalism of my adoption request and seems to suggest I wrote it.