Just as an idea, there's also the category Needing work. Like I said earlier, at least one of the deleted ones I could have, on second thought, elaborated. I mean, on principal, the items themselves were good enough to get a article, right? Spiny Norman (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The link posted was NOT from the 2007 series, it was for the 2015 series. So the 2007 series pilot, as far as I know, is still lost. I would've appreciated an opportunity to clarify before the page was deleted. --JVM (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I've jumped the gun on this one. I should've consulted people with proper knowledge on the subject before taking action, not after. The page has since been restored and I sincerely apologize for any incoveniences. --SenaUW (Talk | contribs) 03:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Madame Sena, I do not know what I just did, and I admit it frankly. My desire is to bring word of the lost silent serials to greater public attention using your wiki.Tnarrud (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Then I recommend you to read the rules and guidelines — something you agreed with when registering on this wiki (which is NOT mine, by the way). Not just read them though, ideally put them in practice too. Recreating the pages exactly like what got them deleted is not going to do you any good. Learn the rules, look at other pages for practical examples, familiarize yourself with the wikicode (you don't need to create an infobox template for every single page, hence the "you don't have an idea of what you just did"), make sure you know what you got to do to make a good article before venturing into contributing to this wiki. We do appreciate that you want to raise awareness to lost media, but please do it in a way that doesn't configure more harm than help. Sir SenaUW (Talk | contribs) 16:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey SenaUW, would you mind deleting all of the comments related to the debacle of a certain user whom I refuse to name on the SpongeBob: Re-Hydrated (partially lost "SpongeBob SquarePants" animated short; 2003) page as I'm not proud of what happened on there. Please and thank you. --Happy Brian (talk, contribs) 16:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there, sorry for the ridiculously late response. I've spoken to a few fellow admins and we've agreed that we should keep his comments there so others know what he's up to and have an example of behavior that might get you in trouble. Sorry about that. SenaUW (Talk | contribs) 03:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply back, I still feel bad for what happened and I consider it to be my biggest mistake that I ever made on this site; in a essence, it's my old shame.
I would like at the very least, remove my comments related to the debacle as I no longer want any association with it and I permanently cleared the fake YouTube video from my browsing history as soon as the truth was revealed.
Dick & Dom
It's my first time making a new page and only spotted the rule about the (brief description; year) after I'd already titled it. For some reason, Chrome wouldn't let me copy the text and paste it so it was simpler to make the page and then move it.
That Kardvstax guy put up the page you specifically told him not to do. Not trying to be a snitch, but I think I just wanted you to know. EDIT: Please unban him. He was apparently trying to delete the page he made (mrblacksmoviereviews) and some misunderstanding apparently led him to put his email address on that Administrators page, thinking he was the Admin for that page. Sorry for the confusion. Tripson (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I made sure to read the guidelines multiple times before making the article. There is no reference to the rule you stated "If you had read the rules and guidelines you'd know you're not supposed to mark your own ""article"" as Needing Work."
I even screenshotted the page beforehand.
Maybe there was in an earlier version of the page, but there isn't now.