This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cyphoidbomb. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Every link was for a film's budget without a wiki link. Why would you delete links to budgets from boxofficemojo and boxofficeflops? Both sites are in dmoz. Both sites are trusted. Explanation please... Jglucks (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Galaxy Kid:Then please list the sources that you deem reliable. Boxofficeflops simply lists financiers of a movie and the budget and it's gross. It's in dmoz boxoffice reports, along with mojo, The-numbers, boxoffice, deadline, guru, worldwide. Perhaps read the linked content before deleting. I'm not looking for a fight here, just had free time and wanted to link - and certainly not spam.
I made a new page and you patrolled it, but said it might not be notable enough. Why is this so? What should I add to the page? I'm working on getting permissions for an image of the renderings, but what else should I add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingofWiki (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry it took a while but I've drafted a template at {{Accessibility dispute/sandbox}}, based on {{Unreferenced}} with enhancements per the instructions at {{Ambox}}. Using your example: {{Accessibility dispute|reason=data tables are not consistent with [[WP:DTT]]; screen readers can't efficiently process large rowspans. Tables should be reformatted in a simpler fashion.}} you get:
This article's accessibility is in question. The specific issue is: data tables are not consistent with WP:DTT; screen readers can't efficiently process large rowspans. Tables should be reformatted in a simpler fashion.. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Information on making articles more accessible can be found at Wikiproject Accessibility.
As requested, I included a section option, so for {{Accessibility dispute|section|reason=data tables are not consistent with [[WP:DTT]]; screen readers can't efficiently process large rowspans. Tables should be reformatted in a simpler fashion.}} you will see:
This section's accessibility is in question. The specific issue is: data tables are not consistent with WP:DTT; screen readers can't efficiently process large rowspans. Tables should be reformatted in a simpler fashion.. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Information on making articles more accessible can be found at Wikiproject Accessibility.
Normally, the small option only includes the main text, but my version retains the issue text:
This section's accessibility is in question. The specific issue is: data tables are not consistent with WP:DTT; screen readers can't efficiently process large rowspans. Tables should be reformatted in a simpler fashion.. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Information on making articles more accessible can be found at Wikiproject Accessibility.
The template can be substed to automatically assign the date: {{subst:Accessibility dispute|reason=data tables are not consistent with [[WP:DTT]]; screen readers can't efficiently process large rowspans. Tables should be reformatted in a simpler fashion.}} results in:
This article's accessibility is in question. The specific issue is: data tables are not consistent with WP:DTT; screen readers can't efficiently process large rowspans. Tables should be reformatted in a simpler fashion.. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Information on making articles more accessible can be found at Wikiproject Accessibility.
In its most basic form, i.e. {{subst:Accessibility dispute}} you will get:
As of yet there is no documentation but you can probably work it all out so please have a play and let me know what you think. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, it was cool. Unfortunately, because it is being used in multiple namespaces I have to use {{Mbox}} instead of {{Ambox}}, which doesn't work as well. The small option doesn't work either. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the functionality of the template, thanks to {{Mbox}}, varies depending on the name space, but everything seems to work fine in articles so the template is all ready to go until somebody changes Module:Message box. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi IJBall, it would be helpful to me if you could take the lead on this. I don't remember when last we spoke, but the one big thing is to remember to do proper attribution per the merge instructions. Please forgive me if you're already hip to this--I'm speaking more out of personal fear, since I did a content move prior to my adminship and forgot to properly attribute. That was embarrassing. Thanks much and have a great weekend! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I've done merges and splits on multiple occasions, and I definitely made at least one mistake on pretty much every one of the early ones I did! I think I've gotten somewhat better since then, and I think I've been error free on the last few I've done... [fingers crossed] Anyway, I'll get to this merge tomorrow morning! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
"leaving him in a critical condition" is very normal, standard, everyday, English and you are incorrect when you describe it as wrong or unusual. A Google search for "left in a critical condition" returns very many hits for this, mostly from English sources. Moted Dryly (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
But, while I'm here and you're being rude, you're wrong about "his speech" too. You may want to ask on the English Usage Stack Exchange site where they'll give you comprehensive information about how often this form is used, and where it's used, and what exactly it means. It does not mean his only speech, it means a speech that he gives. Moted Dryly (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Dragnet, has a strong national tie to America. It's an iconic American franchise, produced in America, and is about fictional police officers in the LAPD. American English has already been established in the article, for instance, we do not use DMY dates, we use MDY dates. So shifting suddenly to an English variant that is not American, is inconsistent with WP:TIES. Beyond just the guidelines, it's common editing practice to match the language about an American subject with American English. We even have templates for this like {{Use American English}} and {{Use British English}} and {{Use Indian English}} and {{Use MDY dates}}. As for your other note about the speech, regardless of your assertion, it was a clunky, bad sentence. "Friday decides to do his speech". Why are we attempting to describe Friday's thought process in a plot summary? We're not privy to his thoughts. "Hmm. This is a problem. I think I'll do a speech." And does someone "do" a speech, or do they "give" a speech? "Perform" a speech? Moot point, since I had already changed the line to "Friday delivers a speech about the use of narcotics by teenagers" which could still be improved to "Friday delivers a warning speech about the use of narcotics by teenagers". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Condemned
Apologies for reverting yor edit, which I have replaced. I had just reverted the long term disruptive anon that is plaquing the film articles, and thought he had reverted my removal of his edit. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Please forgive me for my repeated mistakes on copyright issues. Can you please refer me an Wikipedia article, so I can understand the do's and dont's of wikipedia...Thanks..RAGHUallen (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The Backyardigans section: Recurring characters
Hello, Cyphoidbomb.
Understanding that two characters in the section, Recurring characters, includes a voice actor for one of the characters, may I add the rest of the voices for the characters (and all subsequent portrayers) if necessary?
Thanks for the comment, Cyphoidbomb. I've tried to clarify it again, and i hope it will be clear now. If interested, please leave your comments here. All constructive comments are welcomed. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
And here I was just going to ignore that little snarky aside and sweep that comment into the detritus of my next bot'n'vandal sweep of my Talk Page, but that reply's funny enough to keep. I love IPs thanking me for the welcome but then saying they've been here for years, hmm, then why is this your first edit? Oh, I wonder if that has anything to do with the "create an account" template that I sent you which I did not write and have no opinion on the wordworthiness of its many constituent words. Hell, I don't think I've even actually read each and every template I use for unconstructive words. Whoops! JesseRafe (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
As I don't watch the show, this isn't one of my projects that I keep an eye on, but the reference links visibility issue can be easily fixed by updating that hard-coded table to use the episode table template instead. You can see an example of this at List of Lab Rats episodes or List of Henry Danger episodes. If the background color is too dark or just generally doesn't work, it will automatically add a white background for the column reference links in addition to deciding whether the column headers' text will be white or black.
By using the template, it also gives you more choices on what colors to use and you can get a little bit closer to colors that actually match the show.
Amaury You know, I had noticed the white background at a few articles and wondered how that was done. :) Tables confuse the hell out of me, and I much prefer that smarter people handle that dirty work. :) Thanks for the note, though, I'll keep that in mind! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. If you look at one of the articles mentioned above and edit the page using source mode, you'll see that the code is not that complicated and is, in fact, a lot neater than the hard-coded tables still around, such as on Talia in the Kitchen. Amaury (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
the links will stay the way they where so people can make articles about it there's no reason to act like douse when I made it22:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Ksksksksks (talk)
now thanks to you people deleted it instead of leving it alone there is something wrong with you 22:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Ksksksksks
(talk page stalker)@Ksksksksks: You knowingly created a hoax article; as such, it was rightly deleted in accordance with guidelines. Be glad your article was just deleted; however, if you continue creating hoaxes, you may find yourself blocked. Amaury (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
108.20.47.212 Though I appreciate your explanation, you still need to seek WP:CONSENSUS for the changes via discussion on the article's talk page. Episodes are typically ordered per original broadcast order, not by production order, and there's still no clear indication of what the actual production order was. You seem to be confusing episode numbers for production codes, which are not interchangeable. Nick might consider an episode as 103 because it aired third, not necessarily because it was produced third. Big difference. Also, please see MOS:CT. You've renamed a number of episodes inconsistent with our style guidelines for composition titles. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I will start a conversation, but I doubt many will pitch in. So sorry for all of this, it is turning into a much larger issue than I expected. However, the order you reverted to is not even the original broadcast order, because it is a Canadian-American series and that does not list the Canadian air dates. Also, The Yeti is listed as 103 and Pirate Treasure is listed as 101 when both actually aired out of that order, and I saw the same order used as production order elsewhere but I need to locate that source. Also, the episode titles were only corrected because that is how they are shown on the title cards and how the verified Treehouse TV YouTube channel names them. I do not see anything at MOS:CT that specifically addresses this kind of naming, so I will address that in my conversation as well. Again, so sorry. 108.20.47.212 (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: I am in a hurry and I apologize if any of my sentences sound odd. I did not have the time to proofread.
Several times now you and you alone have reverted or removed a piece of sourced information in the lede paragraph for the Jem movie article. You claim it is a merely editorializing, however, it is supported by reliable sources. Please provide your rationale for why this information should not be included in the lede paragraph since one of the most noteworthy pieces of information about this movie is how badly it tanked at the box office. I would appreciate your response at the talk page for that article. Feel free to copy this request along with your response. -- Avanu (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Avanu My most recent revert was completely boneheaded, so I apologize for that. Obviously a knee-jerk revert, where Cyphoidbomb = the jerk doing the knee-jerking. With every new film release, there's often some editorial nonsense that goes along with it. Pan was panned by critics. Ha ha. Yes, we get it. Sangolli Rayanna has been declared as all time blockbuster in the history of Kannada cinema. Right. All-time blockbuster. Got it. Anyhow, I'm clearly hypersensitive to editorial comments. It seemed to me that the repeated use of "loosely" was someone's attempt to personally divorce the film from the series. Your most recent clarification attributed the statement to critics, which was the correct thing to do, so I was clearly an idiot to revert that. I'm dropping the stick on "loosely". If it's added again, I'll just ignore it. And I apologize for the headache I've caused. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem. You caused me to work at justifying the comment with reliable sources, so that's a good thing. I personally have no attachment to the film or the cartoon. (Personally, in the 80's I found the cartoon mildly entertaining for afternoon fare, but I found the cartoon nearly unwatchable when it went to Netflix a few months back.) But I do think a (at least mild) comparison between the source material and the movie adaptation is warranted considering that it seems to be partly responsible for the failure of the film. -- Avanu (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Bad Girls Club (season 15)
Thanks for your comments at User talk:NatalieFan. I asked for temporary page protection of Bad Girls Club (season 15) to stop the persistent WP:OWN by 76.168.49.73, who was reverting every edit by anyone back to her version. I say "her" because it seems that 76.168.49.73 & NatalieFan are one and the same. 76.168.49.73 was completely unresponsive to posts on her talk page. One thing I pointed out was "text-align" to "texts-align",[1]. NatalieFan has done exactly the same thing.[2] --AussieLegend (✉) 01:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey AL I'm on board here. I understood that an IP was making questionable edits, then they logged in after the article was semi-ed. We're on the same page. Hopefully it won't continue, but if it does, please lemme know and I will deal with it ASAP. Meanwhile, I'm noticing a recurring vandal from your parts (I don't mean your genitals) messing with our articles. Check out the last three or so IPs here. I've seen some flareups in this region. (Again, I don't mean your genitals). Love, and Happy Thanksgiving! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. One of the issues we do have in Australia is that it is possible to be in one state and pick up an IP from another state (remembering that US states are a lot smaller than ours), so it is quite likely this is just one editor as you seemed to have surmised. As for flare-ups, no, my genitals are fine although my temper did flare up a lot. On Monday I tried to get a secondary telephone number disconnected but got stuck in a phone queue so I drove to the local Tel$tra shop where the bloke who was helping me also got stuck in a telephone queue. Yesterday I discovered the number was still active so I rang Tel$tra and managed to get an Australian voice. I thought everything was fine until 9:15 pm when my phone and internet dropped out. Yes, they had disconnected both numbers! Got onto Tel$tra in the Phillipines and spoke to a very arrogant man who wanted to know why I insisted on getting my phone disconnected. As I spoke to him I typed up a formal complaint and submitted it. The phone was reconnected around 3 am but at 9am I got an email from my ISP saying my ADSL had been disconnected. The girl I spoke to on the phone stopped eating her Vindaloo long enough to put me onto someone else, who sent me back to interrupt the Vindaloo eater and I have now had to apply for a new ADSL service, which should be up in the next 10-15 days. In the meantime, I'm stuck on my emergency wireless - SIGH. Fortunately Tel$tra has agreed to pay for it all. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, the article lasted almost 24 hours after protection expired.[3] Since then, there have various unsourced changes,[4][5] one of those removing the "Sources" column that I added to the table. NatalieFan's IP subsequently made one valid removal,[6] but then followed it with a complete reversion of teh remaining table to its former format, stating "I'm confused to why the table format has changed. Look at the other BGC seasons and the table format first" in her edit summary.[7] The net change today was this. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Cyphoidbomb. I have a request: could you start keeping an eye on 96.49.72.50? This IP keeps removing episode titles from Filmography tables (e.g. here (note IP accusing me of "Vandalism") and here) without explanation, and it's starting to border on disruptive. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi IJBall, I'll do what I can. Obviously, please keep me apprised if the problems persist. I notice a history of questionable edits to their talk page, including some attacky edit summaries. Not sure that it's the same person, but it's certainly possible since they seem to be focused on TV articles and actors. I notice that they used to edit Arrow and now there's a recent dispute about The Flash. Looks like they just came off a 1 year block, too: [9]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Horrid Henry
Hi there. Would you consider semi-protecting Horrid Henry: The Movie? I just cleaned up another big mess of copy-pasted crap from the IMDB added by our friend from Christchurch, NZ. Every time I check my watchlist, it's got some unsourced trivia section, long list of release dates, or awards list copy-pasted into it. I let it go a few days, and it accumulated all of them this time. It wouldn't even be so bad if the IP editor weren't so incredibly lazy and persistent in his copyright violations. I don't think he's going to be satisfied until he's copy-pasted the entire IMDB page into our article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I insist on what I said before.The current editing in 2015 in film is very inaccurate while the previous one is very accurate. You make great mistake and you will see that in the future.You will u8nderstand on what I am saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.196 (talk • contribs)
I don't know why you insist on having this conversation here. The place to have it is on the article's talk page where other editors can participate. And frankly I'm growing weary of repeating myself, since I have already rebutted your "but the full data exists in other articles" argument at Talk:2015 in film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Categories
Sorry, I didn't add them, I was trying to revert an IP Address that was adding them without reason. He added it to various TV shows that did not air on certain TV stations, such as Treehouse TV. The IP Addresses that have been doing this (adding Qubo and Treehouse TV) are 2601:401:C501:7E16:5805:DD0:6CEC:BECE, 156.57.88.131, and 2601:401:C501:7E16:69BE:E72C:5DB2:7D0E. You reverted one of this user's edits already, could you send them a message if you have to revert any more? 99.192.9.116 (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
A couple of IPs keep reverting the box office revenue and are verging on edit warring even though they are doing it days apart. Can you please semi-protect the page and put a stop to the nonsense? Atsme📞📧12:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You said you were watching the above article and talk page. I was in a content dispute there with ERIDU-DREAMING a few days ago. Since your warning he has not edited there as such, but instead has taken to IP editing. I realised this from the style, the automatic reversions he made and unwillingness to discuss anything. The edits are being made from IPs 88.104.140.90, 88.104.131.244, and a few other nearby IPs. Which is the same IP range as 88.104.129.115 which was used by ERIDU-DREAMING when he forgot to login in this edit when he abused me. (He then logged in to revise the same comment, so it's quite certainly him.)
I put this note also on Graham Beards's talk page, but he hasn't been active for a few days, meanwhile ERIDU-DREAMING has continued to edit war in his IP guise. 202.81.248.99 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I pretty much wrote the entire article. What has your contribution been? I think I have been very patient with you "202.81.248.99". Did you also forget to log in? ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Page Deletion Proposal
Can you please delete the article - Arakh as it has no encyclopedic use. Also, it dous not have any sources to rely on. I think its just a work of a crazy one. So, remove the article as soon. Thanks...RobertGRAND (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this article? The editor keeps re-adding promotional toned content after being politely (and then a bit more firmly) warned against it. I've had a long day IRL so I doubt my patience will hold up, so I'm going to leave it be. Thanks -- samtarwhisper17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You once requested a user for not adding mobile version of webpages as it's difficult to read for those who use desktop. I guess there is no rule against it, even if i don't like it. The user repeatedly adds mobile versions as references. --TheAvengers17:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Aslishiva, he develops the box office section of Bollywood movies with mobile versions. His edit summary shows mobile edit.--TheAvengers18:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
A favour please?
Could you please keep an eye on 68.228.230.203? I reverted an edit of his (that still looks weird and which I can't actually find in the MOS),[10] and he now seems to be following me around. His last 12 edits have all been to articles that I've just edited. He has a similar IP to a serial troublemaker, so my spidey sense is tingling. It may well be nothing though. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I had second thoughts on that one; I think it's actually the The UPN Vandal, but by the time I was going to switch the report the range was already blocked out (though it still needed it due to the KCA article pestering that AOL range did). Sometimes the sock artists just blend into each other after awhile. Nate•(chatter)21:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice in the past, but my intentions are always to add information to the articles without stealing any copyrighted content. If you read the plot complete summery you will notice that, what ever i have added to the plot summery is my originally written by me and not stolen. Still, if you feel that some part of the first para (which was written by someone else ) is a copyrighted content, then i will make changes to avoid any harm to Wikipedia. Do let me know if it is fine as per Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbunty (talk • contribs) 12:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Imbunty, I believe that the content you added to the previous plot section was your own content. However, in this edit, you restored much of the same problematic content. "and owns hotels across the globe and decides to open a super-specialty clinic in tribute to his deceased brother. He is also married to his brother’s ex girlfriend Siya" can be found verbatim here. "and makes Aditya an ‘indecent proposal’ which involves Siya. This immediately triggering a war between the two. The attacks, counter attacks" is almost verbatim from the same source. Since I have not seen the movie, I could not expertly re-write the intro paragraph, which left only one option: Cut the plot section, because any content that remains and is a direct copy is a copyright violation, and cannot be tolerated in the article. So if you rewrite the entire first paragraph, you can resubmit the other original content you submitted before. Note that changing around a few words here or there is not sufficient. It has to be written from scratch. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi GP, the geolocation is similar and the ISP is the same, but I'm having trouble seeing the behavioral connection. The best I can tell is that they both removed "among others" in their edits here. ?? I may let AIV deal with this one, because although I'm back from a brief wikibreak, I'm not quite back to speed. :/ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You beat me to the response, yes, I should have said both Reverted and Unsourced, I apologize! *Additional Notes;* I was multi-tasking that time too and it sort of screwed me up, making a Gingerbread House, Sound Editing, and undoing that guys unsourced edits too, anyways, Happy Holidays! --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, You are administrator on Wikipedia, so I dont get it why you removed the color scheme and proper monthly arranged blocks citing "eye candy". I get it that you removed useless references but removing the color scheme and neatly arranged monthly blocks? the page now looks so bare with movies released on similar dates overlapping unlike they were in a single block earlier. For example 2015 in film and most of earlier film related list had this color scheme and similar block coding. So why the change? Please clarify. JayB91 (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
JayB91 - Hi there, the totality of the changes are best understood when viewing these two edits where you'll notice that I removed {{Accessibility dispute}}, which contains the reason: data tables are not consistent with WP:DTT; screen readers can't efficiently process large rowspans. Tables should be reformatted in a simpler fashion. The "eye candy" tables were not consistent with WP:DTT since they contained huge rowspans which included vertical text set up with line breaks. For a visually impaired user who employs a screen reader, this data is inaccessible. Using a simpler style makes the information available to a wider readership, and thus promotes accessibility. You'll also notice that per your 2015 in film example, there is a similar maintenance template at the top of that page (courtesy of yours truly) along with a relevant discussion. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
There's an IP who keeps adding a trivial character who had a cameo in Loham and is known only for that cameo in Loham. I had to revert the IP twice. Do you think we need semi-PP? Thanks in advance. Atsme📞📧05:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Atsme - Page protection is not warranted. The editor in question hasn't even been warned. Typically, we only protect pages if there are multiple disruptive users, or if a blocked user is hopping IPs to continue their disruption. If you think their edits are disruptive, you should explain why on their talk page and invite them to discuss on the talk page. If they persist in adding the disputed content, increment the warnings. If they persist, they may be blocked and we'll deal with it that way first. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, much of your efforts at Wikipedia will involve creating talk pages for editors who don't understand our guidelines and policies. You should probably become accustomed to this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Huh? What did you say? My dog is snoring so loud I couldn't hear you! The promo pushing IP edits at Loham and Faisalabad will wear you down. Goshes. Think I'll join the dog. Atsme📞📧06:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
"This will be my only note about this: stop edit warring at Peter Rabbit (TV series), please. You've been at it since November and it's extraordinarily disruptive. Why haven't you bothered to open a discussion in the month-plus that you've been warring? If either of you change the character order again without first achieving consensus, your editing privileges will be interrupted.": "Why haven't you bothered to open a discussion in the month-plus that you've been warring?", First of all it was not meant to be edit warring. So sorry about that. I suppose I did not know what to say or ask about the order preference. "If either of you change the character order again without first achieving consensus, your editing privileges will be interrupted.": Where should that be done? On the talk page of the article?
Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Cyphoidbomb as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk03:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced data at Yu-gi-oh article
I read the message you wrote on my talk page. There is a column reference next to the phrase English air dates in the season 1 section. This is the web link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Yu-Gi-Oh!_Arc-V_episodes#Season_1. The episodes shown on the Australia TV GO! channel are the official English dubbed episodes. The full reference is shown below.
If you go to the url link http://www.yourtv.com.au/guide/search.aspx?q=Yu-Gi-Oh!%20ARC-V then you will see that three new English episodes with the titles, a brief summary and the time period that each episode is scheduled to air on Sunday, December 27, 2015. These episodes are for the Yu-Gi-Oh! ARC-V episodes 37, 38 and 39.
When using a web translator from Japanese to English such as Google Translate to translate the web url, you should see the air date, translated episode title, brief summary and a 30 second trailer. I do realize that there is no episode schedule for the anime TV series on this web url http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/anime/yugioh-arcv/trailer/index.html. However, once a new episode has already aired then the next upcoming episode is listed on the web url.
There is also a reference next to the episode 87 Original air date on December 27, 2015. It is the same reference as the column reference, which is [2].
A while back, I remember you mentioning that production codes =/= episode order when I edited the list of Hey Arnold! episodes. Well, I found the website of a guy who did a bunch of storyboards for Hey Arnold, and many of those storyboards have the production codes in them. (You were right, the intended order doesn't match up with the prod. code.)
For now, I'm going to fix some incorrect airdates and put the episodes on their "intended" order. I'll spend some time matching up backgrounds with episodes, and then add the codes. (Of course, I won't have every code. Several spaces will be blank) Tell me your thoughts. Upgrader01 (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Confused about your edit summary
Hi Cyphoidbomb, I was a bit confused about your reversion and edit summary on the Be Cool, Scooby-Doo page. I didn't change any dates or anything that would affect the ratings, and part of my edit actually removed unsourced information (the episode number of the bottom two episodes in the table hasn't been confirmed yet). Thanks Katniss♥14:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
KatnissEverdeen Hmm, that's a weird one. When I clicked "Restore this version", I'm pretty sure that the changes I was looking to revert were these. Per WP:TVINTL, there was little reason to include Middle Eastern broadcast info, and a user changed an air date from December 10, 2015 to December 19, 2015, despite there being a reference attached to the ratings info titled "SHOWBUZZDAILY's Top 150 Thursday Cable Originals (& Network Update): 12.10.2015". So my edit summary was in reference to the "date-specific ratings info" of 12.10.2015. As for how your other edits got reverted, I dunno, but I see that you'd already reverted these other edits. Weird. I've restored your changes, sorry about the confusion and thanks for bringing it up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
Favre1fan93 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Semiprotection
I just semi-protected your userpage since it was under attack. I wasn't sure how long to leave it semi'd for so I just put indef. I won't wheel war if you undo it :) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't noticed. Thanks for lookin' out Mark and Amaury. Sadly, the kid lives in a world where they've been told that calling someone the opposite gender is an insult. Yawn. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems you've been involved with this user before regarding copyright violations, so just thought you should know that they just had another copyright violation on Game Shakers. See their talk page. Amaury (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
If the other person mentioned on the one person's page was of different nationality, most of the time it is mentioned. It's not like it racist. Kalope (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Kalope You say "most of the time" assertively, but I'd like to see the data that supports that response, or better yet, the community discussion that says that it's an acceptable practice, because I don't know that to be the case. I will point out that this resubmission is unacceptable per WP:BRD. Another editor objected to your change, so your remedy is to seek consensus for inclusion, not to resubmit. It should be noted that there exists in the world a very real behavior of unaware, unintended, subtle bias, where people of one race, ethnicity or nationality tend to feel the need to describe people who are different from them as different. In children's television articles, that is manifest in articles such as this one where only the "African-American", "Korean", and "Latino" characters are identified by their perceived ethnicities, where the light-beige, and presumably "regular" children don't get any special attention. In articles about American or Canadian subjects, sometimes contributors don't realize that Mexico is part of North America. The point is, we don't need to spotlight people's racial/ethnic/nationality differences unless there is a specific reason to do so. In an article about Ruth Negga, her racial/ethnic/national data makes sense to include as we would for Dominic Cooper, but it seems gratuitous to me that we're pointing out that Dominic Cooper has a non-English-Caucasian girlfriend in an article that's not about her. And your addition of the equivalent text in the Dominic Cooper article after-the-fact tends to support my position that this is afterthought data that doesn't really belong in most articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb (talk), are you saying that I'm trying to be racist? In Ed Sheeran's article, Nina Nesbitt's nationality is stated, so is Amy Wadge's, and obviously his own. Plus, OBVIOUSLY on both Ruth Negga's, Dominic Cooper's, (and every other persons living or dead, of course) their nationality are stated. If people are racist, because they're racist. Not because of stating someone's nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalope (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Kalope I think I phrased it very carefully: "It should be noted that there exists in the world a very real behavior of unaware, unintended, subtle bias". Nowhere in my comments did I use the word racist and I have no reason to think that of you. Moving on, I will point out that simply because something exists in article A, doesn't mean we need to carry it to article B. That said, it's also possible that I'm being needlessly stubborn about this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb (talk), you're right about that is not mandatory to state the nationality, but it's should be up to the editor, who's adding the contents in the first place. Not stating it, won't stop the " unaware, unintended, subtle bias". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalope (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
RE : Removal of Ricardo Vargas as a notable student of Jerry Poteet.
Ricardo Vargas is a 2nd Generation Bruce Lee student and now fully accredited Master and Instructor in his own right.He was trained and certified by both Jerry Poteet and Grandmaster Richard Bustillo.He holds a doctorate in philosophy as well as owning and teaching at his own JKD Academy in Adelaide Australia.Also in 2013 he was inducted into The American Martial Arts Hall of Fame.He is also close friends with both Linda Lee Caldwell and Shannon Lee.
How could he NOT be a noteworthy student of Jerrys? I would really like to be advised as to your removal of my edit.thanks Jopurple Jopurple (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Jopurple, I think I explained it pretty well in my edit summary which reads: "If there is no article on Ricardo Vargas, then "notable" has not yet been established to Wikipedia's satisfaction." Now, assuming you're not familiar with Wikipedia stuff, we don't typically include people in lists, particularly in lists that assert some sort of notability unless notability has been established to Wikipedia's satisfaction, because otherwise, everybody with a tangential relationship to anyone would want to put their name up in lights at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site or a blog. We're not here to promote. Now, if Ricardo Vargas meets the general notability guideline because multiple reliable sources (i.e. sources with established reputations for fact-checking and clear editorial policies--read: not blogs, not fringe sites, not press releases, etc) independent of the subject have written comprehensive articles about him, then he might be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Another way to assert notability is through more specific guidelines like WP:BIO, but that might be more stringent. If there is no article on Ricardo Vargas, then "notable" has not yet been established to Wikipedia's satisfaction. Typically we need to establish notability first before we make claims that so-and-so is "notable". I will also point out that circa 2010, two attempts were made to create articles on Ricardo Vargas, but they were so blatantly promotional, they had to be deleted. This is another reason why we have to be circumspect about such additions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your information regarding my ignorance of editing notable persons.I have only recently joined Wikipedia,though i have used it for many years.I decided to join recently after being diagnosed with advanced cancer.I particularly enjoyed rea...
I heard my conflict of interests that I nominated few articles for GA status (Am I allowed to nominated these articles or should I have permission for the users who created the articles or not?)Happypillsjr✉—Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
WillShowU
I typed up a "last chance" message to WillShowU, but then I thought I'd wait till he edits again, to see if he (miraculously) responds to your last. Anyway, there shouldn't be a need for another ANI — there has to be a limit to how much time these kinds of editors waste. (P.S., my spell checker cavilled at the word "crore". I must say that's pretty stupid of it.) Bishonen | talk18:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen Much obliged, and thanks for sparing me the trip. I'm still convinced he's a sock of WikiBriefed though. :) This seems like one of those ignore all rules situations where I should just indef him, involved or not. But alas... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
hello Cymphiodbomb, I just noticed that you reverted my edits on Diyar-e-Dil, however I wanted to sake you that I saw several articles where TV series with Season 1 only have there episode listing within the article, I've also seen several articles with this platform so thought to move on with this way, if its not allowed then please inform me on my talk page. Sammy.joseph (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Sammy.joseph, if those were your edits, it looks like you may have edited while logged out. If this is an issue for you, you might want to have the oversight team suppress your IP. (Not everybody cares about that, though.) While you are correct that we typically don't create List of episodes articles if there's only 1 season, we also don't do copy/paste moves without proper attribution. See WP:CWW for instructions. At the very least, when copying content, you need to clearly indicate that the content is being copied. An edit summary along the lines of "Content copied from List of Diyar-e-Dil episodes. See that article for attribution history." is the bare minimum. Even better is to do that plus add a properly filled-out {{copied}} template at the top of Talk:Diyar-e-Dil. Lastly, if List of Diyar-e-Dil episodes was no longer useful, it should have been converted to a redirect to Diyar-e-Dil#Episodes, which is where the episode list should go. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Al Ahly SC
Greetings Cyphoidbomb. While reviewing Recent Changes today I discovered the the Al Ahly SC article in a deplorable state without a worthwhile revision to fall back to, as the heavily promotional language was ingrained so far back that it did not seem possible to resolve the constant roster changes and other statistical updates.
My experience with posting these sort of issues to WP:AN has been mixed, and every so often an issue raised there will be archived before it elicits a response or attention. I was hoping you might be able to provide some insight as far as the most appropriate noticeboard(s) to highlight this concern? This is a fairly high-traffic article (in terms of edit frequency) and would greatly benefit from the review of multiple experienced editors. I thank you for any feedback you may provide. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Yamaguchi先生, I'm very sorry for not responding sooner. I've been swamped. I'm about a day behind on my watchlist...actually using an old watchlist tab from yesterday to get caught up on yesterday's monitoring, then I have to take care of today's monitoring. Gaah! Anyhow, I've added that page to my watchlist. I agree with your changes here. You were kind to describe your changes as "Unsourced change, promotional language." I would have used the edit summary, "Removing horseshit". I'll keep an eye on the page so that hopefully we can prevent these issues again. Happy New Year! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Persistent "universal acclaim" peacock wording
I'm having a bit of trouble with Carl Waxman (talk·contribs) He's persistently adding peacock wording to articles and refusing to address the talk page messages that I've left him. Maybe you can make some progress with this person. Example diff: [13]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
About the pages I edited and apology
I am sorry for adding a infobox and threatening her on her talk page , Betty Logan told me it was diabolical and unnecessary whereas I my perspective was quite the opposite. All was I trying to do was to update the page so the facts are updated to this year. Where can I to put my updates for the Bond Franchise on Wikipedia especially for the grosses adjusted to 2015 inflation so the whole world will see without interfering with another article? I show great sympathy for myself, you and Betty Logan, but I am a 007 fan and got carried away with what I did, all I was trying to do was to was do a positive thing for wikipedia, but as Betty Logan started to undo the changes I have done I got provoked and that's the reason I tried to warn her on her talk page that I am doing a positive thing for Wikipedia which she believes I'm making the Bond page worse. Now, I give her my apology for my actions on that talk page and give you mine since you're the administrator of this particular Wikipedia.(162.206.28.243 (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC))
2016
Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?
Cyphoidbomb, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for your extensive mentorship and support, it is sincerely appreciated. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Amaury (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
"Second highest-grossing film to star a guy with a beard."
Okay, that was genuinely funny. No, I liked it a lot.
Aah, the gift. You know you always had it. Just speak a word and people start laughing. The gift to make people laugh. So far, you've been a successful joker with your stupid summaries and talks. I hope you can keep up the good work. Kudos!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillShowU (talk • contribs)
Titodutta, thanks for the info. I'm still confused about the video. "Munni recognizes her mother walking by in the video". Chand Nawab is documenting Bajrangi and Munni's journey, correct? Is Munni watching the documentary footage, and by coincidence her mother appears in that footage? Or is Munni watching some other video? It's confusing to me because they haven't found Mom yet, so why would she appear in the documentary footage. I understand if Munni and her mother's paths crossed and they were both unaware of each other at the time, (Mom in the background, Munni in the foreground or whatever) but that's not clear in the plot summary. Also, I clearly have not seen the movie. :) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Actually Nawab (a journalist by profession), was taking his video at that particular moment, Munni's mother walked by his hide. No one including Munni noticed it. Munni noticed only when the video was being played in the handcam. These three photos may clarify more. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
acording to nic nagel a cast member from the show it is a nicktoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenzie20 (talk • contribs)
Kenzie20 - The Wikipedia community doesn't care that you say that someone else said something. At worst that's rumormongering, and at best that's original research. We only care what reliable published sources have to say. If there's any coverage about this on reliable news websites, go find it. Wikia may not be used for this. It's a crappy site full of hoax nonsense. We also have no deadline, so if we have to wait until good references can be found, we will. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
If it's not a verified account, it cannot be used. Surely there must be some reliable published sources out there. The Hollywood Reporter? Variety? Deadline Hollywood? Please sign your talk page comments with four tildes ~~~~. These will be automatically converted to a time-stamped signature. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
TV runtimes
You may remember that back in March we had an RfC at WT:TV about runtimes (archived here). The RfC was closed for technical purposes, due to the wording used by the nominator, with no outcome that could be called consensus. However, he took it upon himself to change the documentation for {{Infobox television}}, so that it supported his position.[15] We've had some wars over this and I've just noticed that he is removing runtimes from multiple articles,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] edit-warring sometimes and occasionally removing the parameter entirely, not just the actual runtimes, claiming "See the template's documentation. Claims of running time MUST be cited" in his edit summaries. The change to the documentation was not supported by consensus and was made by him, so he's effectively dictating his own position to other editors, which was not the outcome of the RfC. At the very least, he should have started a new RfC to get this change into the documentation. To dictate what others should do without the support of consensus is disruptive at best and I think we really need to resolve this one way or another. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't have bothered with this. Tenebrae violated 3RR so I submitted a report and now I'm being attacked by an admin doesn't seem to have any grasp of policy and is siding with Tenebrae. I'm seriously considering just giving up Wikipedia completely. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey man, I feel you. From my perspective, and I don't mean this in any way to be disparaging to you, I don't know that this is worth the headache. It seems to me that it was fairly clear that the result of the RfC was that we needed to source runtimes. There are tons of times when the community makes a decision that is contradictory or not well-conceived. Sometimes the project suffers as a result. That's just part of what happens in this weird, never-done-before, global experiment. I don't think it's wise, however, to wantonly remove all unsourced runtimes. A good example is with the |genre=. We decided that genre must be sourced, but going article to article to remove unsourced genres isn't really helpful. We know that Scooby-Doo is animation. That can be directly observed a la "the sky is blue". We know that it's a comedy. Why remove those? But when someone starts adding weird shit like "comedy-drama" "horror comedy" "black comedy" that might be a good time to invoke the rule. That said, I think in that RfC I pitched the idea that rather than focusing on the actual running times, we focus on the blocks, e.g. 15-minute short, 30-minute sit-com, 1-hour drama, 2-hour movie block. That might have solved some of this. WTF do we need to know how many literal minutes a show runs for minus commercials? I dunno... Lastly, I can sympathize with your burnout. I've been playing catchup with my editing for weeks. This kind of drama seems like it's just gonna burn you out and make you resentful of Wikipedia, which is certainly a loss for us. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The issue here is not with sourcing, it's with citing. We can't use OR to determine runtimes but there was no requirement to cite them at all, let alone in every case. The RfC closer clarified this when he said Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind. Unfortunately, Tenebrae is insisting that anything not cited is OR and isn't even bothering to challenge uncited runtimes with {{citation needed}}. He's just deleting the content even when the runtime in the article is correct. At New Girl, 22 minutes was in the article for a long time until an IP changed it.[23] Ironically, the IP was technically correct. If you look at the citation that I added, the source confirms this if you look at all seasons in the series. Tenebrae seems happy though with just a citation for the season 4 episodes. Runtimes really only need citing when they're contentious and you're correct when you say "WTF do we need to know how many literal minutes a show runs for minus commercials?". {{Infobox television}} caters for this by only asking for an approximation, which is why 22 minutes for New Girl was in the article. Common sense has to be used but there seems to be a distinct lack of it with many editors and I'm really at the point where I can't tolerate idiots any more. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
YGM
Hello, Cyphoidbomb. Please check your email – you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
_(14586469407).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
