Well, as I'm sure it's stated in the links Utter has taken the liberty of posting (which I thank her for,) for starters, there was no voting on the image and no consensus reached. For another, while the image is good quality, it's a poor choice since it also features Elsa quite close to her to the point that not even cropping would make acceptable. There will be other pictures in the future, and as of policy, official pictures/bts/promotional photos should not be used for article images except in the case of 'outside world' subject. (I.E. actors, merchandise etc.) The policies are a good read and I'd recommend going through them as I'm sure they may be different than others to avoid further confusion. (Quite exemplary too if I'm honest.) I probably didn't need to respond to this, but just thought I'd reiterate.
I don't know what prompted this edit summary, but if it happens again, you will be blocked. Such a display is not necessary or appropriate. If you see a mistake in an article, by all means, please, correct it, but there is no reason to ever have attitude in an edit summary, especially unprovoked. Edit summaries are public and visible in the Recent Activity, Recent Changes, article history, and your contribs page. This kind of thing makes the wiki and you look bad. Nobody wants that, especially from a valued editor like yourself.
My apologies, but I meant no means of any crudeness when written. It was written in more of a defensive manner as a good number of my edits have been undone and I have been blocked because of it. I presumed this would be another case if I had not cited the proper source or something along those lines.
Now that you're here actually, I was wondering about the fairy tale pages in general. You and I both know that there are multiple versions of a tale, or at least a few differing factors from publication to publication. Should we, the editors, include footnotes concerning these changes? Or would that just be similar to pointing out how many times George Lucas has gone back and changed Star Wars?
I just thought it fair to mention it. The version I always read of Rapunzel's tale was that her pregnancy led to her being discovered and bore the tiwns while cast out. But this wikia's version seems to tell of the version that Rapunzel and her prince had the twins after their reunion. It's these little things and difference in events that I think should be taken note of, but that's just me.
I agree entirely. I only mean like tiny little alterations....not quite telling how Cinderella is told in China vs. France or whatever. Merely the little things. But aye, it would be rather strenuous to mention each and every change.
I truly apologize for the misunderstanding with the question marks, I never tried to seem rude or like I was shouting, I'm used to put a lot of them when I chat, and I never imagined I might seem ofensive, again, I'm sorry. I was interested in the Knave subject because It's something I've wondered too. The Wonderland plot seems interesting and I was trying to share opinions with someone who might be interested in the same subject. Hope this helpes to make up my mistake.
hehehe how embarrasing, I never wished to show such impresion, but I'm really interesting in Wonderland, not only the Knave fact, I also wonder if we might see Cora and if she might have some kind of rivalry with the Red Queen
Aye...I've had to spend the past half hour combing over the pages just to make sure I didn't miss anything. Had I the authority, I'd block him in an instant. I've already taken the liberty of notifying Applgirl. Though I don't think anything can be done right this second.
Well, I'd love to take that, believe me I would. But until I see the ACTUAL tweet, (just for references sake) I can't add that in. (I believe you, I have my hunch she'll remain a series regular given the responsibility she's been given, but just for policy sake you understand.)