Thread:TheQuazz/@comment-6028837-20160120154733/@comment-995426-20160129140832

So, you said you wanted to improve this wiki, right? Well, you're part of a team, but you're also not an automoton. You can do as much or as little as you want. You can improve the wiki in little ways, with fixes, additions, etc. Or you can improve it in larger ways, such as editing article stubs into more complete, comprehensive articles. You can also do things like...add images to galleries (as long as they're within policy). There is so much maintenance that remains undone, and I can only do so much, so fast.

I've actually been the editor primarily responsible for multiple areas of the wiki, including MNT Gaiden, Amazing Adventures, the maintenance of many different kinds of categories, and I was formerly the wiki's chief 2012 TV series GIF maker. And the articles for Mirage TMNT, Archie TMNT, Image TMNT and IDW TMNT (not to mention some of the video games) only get sporadic maintenance most of the time. Many comics issues still lack articles. By contrast, the 2012 TV series articles are better-maintained by the general community, because most casual users really don't contribute to any other topic of focus&mdash;as a result, Turtlepedia (which is supposed to cover the entire franchise) has better 2012 TV series coverage than the actual TMNT 2012 Wiki.

In the past, I've repeatedly solicited discussion on wider or more technical wiki issues from the general user base, but I seldom actually get responses, finding it's more useful to speak one-on-one with active admins like Trigger009, or other individual active users more interested in non-2012 topics.

But much of the time, the only real way to get something done is to take initiative and do it yourself, remembering to mind the admins if they take issue with one of your edits. The #1 issue I've been stopped for? Speculation (usually involving "may", "can", "could", "possibly", "probably", "likely", "maybe", etc.), which is generally a no-no on the wiki; information must ultimately be officially verifiable. If Trigger009 or another admin reverts one of your edits, stay calm, and consider your options: ...I hope I'm not providing you too many notes at once. XD
 * You can reason with an admin in a respectful manner. Don't bicker, don't insult.  Often this doesn't make a difference, but sometimes an admin overlooked something you didn't.
 * The gist of the edit may have been sound, but you may have worded it inappropriately. In the case of speculation, it's important not to assert conclusions, but it generally is more permissible to point out noteworthy similarities.  "X is very similar to Y" doesn't require verification if it is self-evident, but "X is possibly based on Y" is inappropriately speculative.  "X is based on Y" requires verification or references.