AmericanDad86

Lehigh lawsuit

Every editor who has commented on this issue - and I count five other than myself - has recommended omitting the issue from the article. I recommend you either drop the issue or find a way to seek additional input (RfC would probably be the next step) because right now you seem to simply be edit warring in the face of a very clear consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI is worthless

Your detractors are acting in a way that makes it impossible to have an actual conversation, so I'll ask here. Why did you choose to use the words "Dear" and "Honey" in addressing CTF83? I should clarify that this isn't an idle question; I'm going to insist on an answer before you continue to edit here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

contact phone number

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.176.248 (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you IP! If there's any further stalking and abuse from admin Bbb23, I will use this number to make a formal complaint against him on the spot. As of right now, admin Floquenbeam has stepped in and has given all involved parties sage advice and resolved the matters. I'm planning to just refer to him if I have any further problems with the users in question. =D I originally was going to use the number because I thought that because Bbb23 was an admin, all other admins would just blindly support him. Thankfully I was wrong and upstanding admins do exist on the website. AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Michael Cole

Do you have anything to add to the talk page before I revert again?LM2000 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Bordertown

I moved Bordertown (animated series) to Bordertown (2014 TV series) cause that would be the correct dab that we should use to distinguish the two. Just check out Dads (2013 TV series), Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series) and many others that i cannot think of right now. Koala15 (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That was kind of you

You leaped in and attacked me. I love it. How sweet, how kind, how lovely to meet you. Forgive me if I do not invite you to tea :). I may miss you off my christmas card list, too. Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Very good reasoning

It seems we have crossed paths again and this time, we see eye-to-eye in a productive manner. You are correct in your deduction pertaining to the It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World article, as I would have reacted in the same way. I may actually call for some extensive measures for protection, given the severity of the editor war arising on that page, but not to an extreme degree hopefully. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A friendly heads up

I thought it was only fair to warn you that Bbb23 have been corresponding through email and AOL Instant Messenger since your response on Bbb23's talk page, and from the sound of things you may have a ban coming. One non-admin to another, I don't think your behavior really merits that harsh of a sanction, but I thought you should know. Thanks and have a blessed day. ToFeignClef (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

ToFeignClef, you need to explain your statements above.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize it was privileged correspondence. My bad. ToFeignClef (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

ToFeignClef, what was "privileged correspondence"? As I understand your first sentence, you claim I've been e-mailing with someone about AmericanDad? Who and what is your basis for the statement? You also claim I've instant messaging with someone about AmericanDad. Who and what is your basis for the statement?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

::::ToFeignClef, thank you so very kindly for bringing these matters to my attention. Bbb23, what kind of a question is "Who and what is the basis of your question?!" Either you've been engaging in these practices or you haven't. Either one or the other. Simple as that. Which is it, without all the nonsense obfuscating that you're doing? Have you or haven't you been having correspondence about trying to get me banned on AOL instant messenger and e-mailing systems? Because if so, that's a tremendous abuse of your power as an admin and one that warrants a serious report of abuse of your position. So? AmericanDad86 (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

American Dad Seasons 9 & 10

I went ahead and uploaded the iTunes covers for American Dad Seasons 9 and 10. Its a practice I've seen done with the latest seasons of The Simpsons and Adventure Time, which don't have DVDs yet. I intend to replace the image with the DVD cover art when its released. Do you have any oppositions or input? Grapesoda22 (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "The Simpsons". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 02:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Re

I have lost track of whats happening with us and blurred lines with The Simpsons article. and I'm having issues with creating an imdb account. Grapesoda22 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant what happened before his banning, I just remember we had a disagreement about the infobox mentioning the series being considered adult animation then things got heated and I lost track of what happened exactly. Also I made the account [1] Grapesoda22 (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Should I add people or something? or use as a reference? 05:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much baseless

Hey,AD86, I read through your SPI, and to be honest, it's pretty much baseless. Your first piece of evidence, the edit summaries, is meaningless: those edit summaries are automatically supplied by Twinkle, which is a semi-automated tool; it is extremely widespread in use, and anyone who uses it is going to have the exact same edit summaries. Basically you're just saying that the two users both use Twinkle, and given how very widespread it is, that means nothing. Your second point, about the blocking, also means nothing with regards to sockpuppetry. If one account was blocked, there would be nothing technically restricting the other from editing. Indeed, switching to the other account and editing while the first is unblocked is one of the reasons we run an SPI; the absence of that certainly doesn't mean there is sockpuppetry. And your last piece of evidence just looks like sour grapes on your part, to be honest; it looks like you're just saying that they're sockpuppets because they disagreed with you. I'd recommend you don't keep pursuing this, though I suppose it's up to you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at The Simpsons. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  —Darkwind (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AmericanDad86 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is a total injustice. This whole ordeal was initially between Blurred Lines against multiple other editors he was edit warring with at The Simpsons article, and I had noticed and stepped in as a liaison with sources to resolve the matter. That's when BlurredLines began to antagonize me. Even if you'll notice by my edits at The Simpsons article, I had been REPEATEDLY adding new reliable references for my every edit while BlurredLines just kept complaining I'm not being reliable enough and reverting, refusing to allow discussion at the article talk page where he abruptly closes it as shown at that talkpage, opening discussions at different noticeboards (without AT ALL informing editors in contention with him of all these noticeboard discussions that he was opening up) to tell everyone my references "weren't reliable".

Each time, the editors at the noticeboards would inform him that my references are IN FACT reliable but that I might use a better source since BlurredLines was complaining. I was continually taking these suggestions from members from the Reliable Source Noticeboard, changing up my sources, since nothing was pleasing BlurredLines.

It's very important to note that this editing dispute was originally between BlurredLines and two other editors, Grapesoda22 and WikiAnthony. There was a whole bunch of edit warring going on between Blurred Lines against multiple other editors when I stepped in and he was having other edit wars at that article unrelated to this issue as well (as shown here [2], here [3], here [4], here [5]). For a clearer picture, simply scroll down below my edits and look for yourself at the entire article history of The Simpsons (as shown here[6]). This all results in BlurredLines flooding the talk pages of these other editors he's edit warring against with all these warnings, as shown here [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). Noticing all the edit warring and barrage of article talk page warnings, I stepped in as a liaison WITH A SOURCE to resolve the heated matter at The Simpsons article (as shown here [12], not directly reverting but adding this source to settle the dispute [13]).

That's when BlurredLines would of course then start up on me, complaining that my source violated Reliable source policy, this he was reverting, as shown here [14]. That ultimately resulted in a block for the user, as shown here [15], the admin also noting that BlurredLines had been blocked three times (now his 4th) since October 1, 2013, as shown here [16].

During his block, BlurredLines pretty much acknowledged that he wasn't being cooperative promising the admin that he'd change and discuss the matters constructively, as shown here [17]. However, as soon as his block ended, he returned by first trying to get me blocked as shown here at the ANI Noticeboards this bogus report on me at Administrative Noticeboards and sending me this [18] and this [19] at my user talk page.

BlurredLines followed this up by immediately reverting my edit and CLOSING THE DISCUSSION AT THE ARTICLE TALKPAGE THAT HADN'T EVEN BEEN OPENED BEYOND A FEW DAYS, this preventing further discussion on the matters, as shown here [20]. Without informing me or the other editors, he started up this discussion [21] at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (an entirely different user finally clued me in on this noticeboard discussion going on, as shown here [22]). BlurredLines ends up getting dismissed from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard because his lack of communication at the article talkpage that he abruptly closed (the dismissal for that reason as shown here [23]).

Instead of following their instruction at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to open back up discussion at the article talk page that he so abruptly closed, BlurredLines simply opens up the discussion at ANOTHER noticeboard, as shown here [24]. Mind you, I was not informed of that discussion he opened up at the Reliable Source Noticeboard until he reverted the edit on basis of what only two individuals had said in that discussion, as shown in the following where he cites that discussion as his reasoning for his revert [25]. That is how I was informed of that noticeboard discussion and it was only then did I participate in that discussion.

Despite the fact that I was uninformed of this discussion (as BlurredLines never goes to the user talk-pages of those he's in disagreement with to inform them he's opened up a Noticeboard discussion to handle the matter), I followed the advice of the editors at the noticeboard to just try and find a better reference since BlurredLines is dissatisfied with my reliable reference, as shown here at my use of a new reference [26]; BlurredLines complains again that this reference is not reliable at the Noticeboard and an editor has this to say [27], stating the source is reliable but to find a source in which everything has to do with animation, so I provide THREE sources entirely dealing with animation as shown here [28]. Despite that, I STILL get reverted by BlurredLines, as shown here [29] where he tells me to read over the discussion.

Despite my trying to negotiate with this user, coming up with new reliable sources for him MULTIPLE times, I continually get reverted by BlurredLines, as shown here [30] here [31] and here [32]. Mind you, none of those uninvolved parties at the Reliable Source Noticeboard ever said that my references were unreliable. My references all followed WP:SOURCE, but since BlurredLines was making much ado over nothing, they recommended better reliable sources which I kept going out of my way to incorporate. I wasn't just merely reverting and refusing to negotiate as BlurredLines was.

Considering I stepped in a liaison with new sources repeatedly to resolve this matter at the editor's admitted uncooperativeness, I do not feel it's fair of me to be blocked. All along, I was trying to fill in everyone of just what exactly this editor was doing, as shown here [33] and here [34]. I'd like to add that resolving the matter with this editor is also difficult in that I'm constantly confused as to if the edit is still even in dispute because of his penchant for announcing "wikibreaks," then immediately coming back to antagonize me, as shown here [35], here [36], here [37]. His contention over the edit will be off and then unexpectedly on again because of his immediate return from a "break." In conclusion, If this editor is closing discussions at article talk pages, repeatedly going to different noticeboards until he gets his way, I cannot then communicate with him. I tried informing admins and other individuals of all these behaviors but no one ever stepped in. This has all been acknowledged by uninvolved editors when BlurredLines opens up ANI Noticeboard reports on me to get me blocked, [38] and User:AmericanDad86 reported by User:Blurred Lines (Result: both blocked), yet I've gotten blocked anyway. As you can see the user has tried multiple times to get me blocked because he was blocked. AmericanDad86 (talk)

Decline reason:

More of a procedural decline given that by the time I click save the block will have expired. I can see how you feel you got the raw end of the deal in this case and to a degree I agree with you. In the future I'd like to remind you that edit warring doesn't just mean reverting. These two edits alone suggest that you have been edit warring (specifically the edit summaries), in the future if you are acting as an intermediary and making edits per consensus it's generally good to explicitly state this in your edit summary with a link to that consensus. Also the sockpuppetry case you submitted was deleted the first time because it was "Completely baseless", you then submitted it again after it had been deleted. This along with your continuing edits to User talk:Blurred Lines suggests the beginnings of harassment. For the future my suggestion would be that if an editor is unresponsive, talk a day or two away from the article (and especially the other parties) and see what happens. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Actually, I wouldn't have minded the unblock even if it were a few moments before the block ended. The mere fact of having had a block on one's record can look bad. Either way, thank you for your understanding Cullanecc and I will definitely take all your sage advice to your heart. Cheers! AmericanDad86 (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

Some questions for you (feel free to answer in line):

• On The Simpsons

1. Do you consider your reverts on The Simpsons to be edit warring?
2. If not which of the exceptions do you believe your reverts meet?
3. Why was it necessary to revert rather than discuss or report Blurred Lines' behaviour?

• On User talk:Blurred Lines

1. Do you consider your reverts on User talk:Blurred Lines to be edit warring?
2. If not which of the exceptions do you believe your reverts meet? Why did you feel you needed to ignore WP:OWNTALK and revert?
3. Why was it necessary to revert rather than discuss or report Blurred Lines' behaviour?

--Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Admin Culdesac for inquiring on details regarding this matter and list of questions for me.

On The Simpsons

Question 1: Do you consider your reverts on The Simpsons to be edit warring?

I do not feel I was edit warring. Initially, I was acting as a liaison in these matters. Originally, Blurred Lines had been edit warring over this edit against multiple other editors(as shown here [39], here [40], here [41], here [42]). I noticed this when I saw their talk pages flooded with warnings (as shown here [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]) which naturally I found to be disruptive. The situation was entirely out of hand between BlurredLines and his opposers. Even if you go to edit history at The Simpsons and scroll down below my edits, you will notice that this editor was edit warring over this edit and others well before I even came along to help resolve the issue (as shown here [48]).

When BlurredLines flooding the talkpages of the editors of whom he disagreed with warnings. I tried to resolve the matter by simply providing a book source for the edits of individuals BlurredLines was edit warring with (as shown here [49]). This was as opposed to just simply reverting him like he and all the editors who disagreed with him had previously been doing. Mind you, I provided a book because WP:SOURCE states that books that come from established publishing houses qualify as credible source.

That is when BlurredLines threw a fit and announced a wikibreak. So I thought the matter was no longer in contention. A few hours later however, he said his wikibreak was over, came back and reverted. We attempted a talk page discussion, but he abruptly closed that, stating that the result of it was to have the edit he didn't want in removed. He also opened up multiple noticeboards without informing me and the others of this. This all led to a block for him, his third since Oct 1, 2013. When he was dismissed from one noticeboard for lack of discussion on the talkpage, he'd just open up another until he found one person who agreed with him that "perhaps I could use a better source even though my source is reliable." This would lead him to revert the edit. I would then provide a different book source each time in line with the feedback despite not being previously informed of these different noticeboard discussions he was having. In my last and final edit, I had added three new book sources that completely involved animation as was requested in the discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. One editor said that my source was reliable but since BlurredLines was dissatisfied to find a better reliable source in which the entirety of the book dealt with animation. I did this and as you can see at the article, he still reverted.

Question 2: If not which of the exceptions do you believe your reverts meet?

If you'll notice, I repeatedly provide different reliable book sources and try to negotiate with the user while he only reverts

[50] (1st book source to settle the dispute he's having with others)

[51] (a 2nd different book source here after he complains about the reliability of the first)

[52] (After he still complains of reliability going to different noticeboards, I come up with THREE new book sources)

This is still not enough for the editor and he reverts. Moreover, BlurredLine's first issue with the other editors he was edit warring against was that this claim simply wasn't true. His new issue became reliability of all my book sources from established publishing houses. I went to the trouble of finding three books that acknowledged the claim and this still wasn't enough.

Question 3: Why was it necessary to revert rather than discuss or report Blurred Lines' behaviour?

As you'll note in the following link, Blurred Lines abruptly closes that discussion at The Simpsons article talk page, preventing further communications on the matter (as shown here [53]). Blurred Lines then opens up multiple noticeboard discussions to get other editors to see things his way, MIND YOU, without informing me and the other editors in contention of these noticeboard discussions he's opening. He is dismissed for lack of discussion at the article talk page (as shown here [54], but just keeps on opening up more noticeboards discussions.

Moreover, I had been reporting these matters as they unfolded to administrator Ed Johnston, as shown here [55] and here [56].

On User talk:Blurred Lines

Do you consider your reverts on User talk:Blurred Lines to be edit warring?

I have never reverted edits on Blurred Line's talk page. I've made three edits on his talkpage, but none of them were reverts.

If not which of the exceptions do you believe your reverts meet? Why did you feel you needed to ignore WP:OWNTALK and revert?

I don't think this question applies as I never reverted on his talk page at all.

Why was it necessary to revert rather than discuss or report Blurred Lines' behaviour?

I never reverted on his talk page at all.

I do thank you once again for inquiring on details of this matter and hope that this provides insight as to why I believe the block was unfair considering this user's behavior, not only with myself but against others and his constant attempts to try to get me blocked. AmericanDad86 (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration project

Remember we mentioned doing a collaboration project a while back? How about next week we restore the page for the pilot episode and fix it up to be really good. Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And you too!

Happy holidays! ;) DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

ED Article

Just read about you on Encyclopedia Dramatica. You seem like a really interesting person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.75.105 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha! I had never even heard of this website before you mentioned it. Unsurprising as the site is tremendously unpopular and looked down upon from everything I'm reading up on the Internet. I'll think about being offended over the article once the site develops even a smidgen of popularity, visibility in Alexa rankings and the slightest bit of respect from the general public (that actually is aware of it). As of yet, however, fat chance of that considering this "Enclyclopedia Dramatica" comes up at 1,113,499 according the following article and others across the web http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/encyclopediadramatica.com. It also states that there's not much data on this particular website because of its low Internet rankings.

The site is brutally bashed as a "failed parody of Wikipedia" and a place inhabited by "Wikipedia rejects," "people with no lives," and "fourteen year old losers" (such as shown here http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Encyclopedia%20Dramatica&page=4 and here http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=encyclopediadramatica.com and http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Encyclopedia%20Dramatica).

Again, once this obscure site is able to develop even the slightest bit of popularity, I'll see about being offended by the article. And a piece of advice to the creator as I just know he'll be back to read this, if you're going to go to all the effort to try to insult someone, do it on a website that comes up... I don't know, in the top 10,000 websites on the Internet so more than 5 people will actually bother to read what looks like you put a month's worth of your blood, sweat, and tears into. Peace! Oh and please add this passage to your article on me in a fashion that makes the 5 viewers of your article laugh. AmericanDad86 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

AmericanDad86 seems to have been genuinely hurt by the content of his ED page. Why not E-Mail the site's moderator & ask them to take your page down? Hope I've been of some help to you AmericanDad86.81.102.75.105 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

IP, I signed your post for you. To sign posts on Wikipedia, you have to write the following inside of the parenthesis " ```` ". Thank you for your concern about my feelings. It's very much appreciated. If you are truly that concerned about it, I more than welcome you to make a complaint on my behalf to have it taken down. Are you black and/or gay? I can see how it would offend you if you are black and/or gay regardless of it being directed at me, but as stated, 20 people or less are going to look at it, so I wouldn't let it bother you too much. If it offends you regardless of this, you can go ahead and ask them to have it taken down and I most certainly will support. Cheers! AmericanDad86 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

honestly AD86, these guys are monsters. Once d0x are obtained they can do terrible things to you. I have nothing to hide, you have my IP. I am just trying to warn you about these people. If this escalates then contact law enforcement. Best of luck buddy.81.102.75.105 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, IP. Thanks for the heads up. AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

ATTENTION EVERYONE Please view my user talk page here for more information on how you can help Krackerack get more than 10 views for his article dedicated to me at Enclyclopedia Dramatica. =D =D =D AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

AmericanDad86, I was watching Judge Judy with my uncle, so I decided to learn more about her and lo and behold, I see you for the first time in months! So, I figured I'd stop in to say hello, but it looks like you have something else going on. When I was in high school, I visited /b and ED with my stoner friends for shock value, but nothing could compare to the shock of seeing you talking about a page about you. I would send my condolences, but... I think you actually are taking everything like a GOD. Seriously, I absolutely love your response! Will you marry me? :P Also, ED has this way of praising people who respond the way you do, so I'd say screw Krackerack and keep doing what you're doing! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Haha, they'll probably take the joke literally and post something like "DarthBotto aka Samuel Horton's a faggot", since they'd Google my name and my IMDb page kind of would stand out. If anything else, just keep laughing with them and you'll be their new hero. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

you are a god. 129.101.0.128 (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Lmfao guys, thanks! I responded to both of you on your user talk pages. Cheers! AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

American Dad

I believe you had said to edit the long 23rd Season One and everyone after leading up to the 10th 3 episode season. However, Koala15 has decided to reverse all my edits and say "everything was wrong". Not sure what the problem is, other than some regular edit mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongey253 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What will we be doing over at American Dad? Spongey253 (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Same article...

I must admit to not completely understanding all of the kerfuffle with American Dad!, but I am of the impression that the discussion titled "Vote to KEEP or CHANGE American Dad's Episode Guide" is about the 3 recently aired episodes. Spongey253 has just completely reorganised EVERY season article, claiming that "Four of us over at the AD talk page pretty much agreed on switching to the fewer-number season" as justification.[57] However, I don't see any discussion of earlier seasons. Am I correct? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Undertaker

Yes, I just wanted to thank you because of what you explained me, since English isn't my first language, so that's why I did that mistake with the semicolon.--Davide King (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For being a "hero". (If there was an award for Wikipedia editors "AmericanDad86" would win, hands down. Little did they know about barnstars...) – czar 06:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail audio

I noticed in edit summaries that you mention that Daily Mail has audio recordings of Hogan, do they still have them up? Do you know which article I can find them at? All I've encountered are transcripts and I am listening to the tone of voice in which words were said. Ranze (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool I haven't heard that one yet, so that solves half my curiosity. My primary interest was the audio from the sex tape where he's discussing someone Brooke is dating though, since that seems what most of the fuss is about. Ranze (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have read the transcripts, I just haven't heard the raw audio, so I only know what was said, not how it was said. Ranze (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My current pursuits

I figured I'd take the conversation away from Bbb23's talk page, as I don't want to irritate him with all the notifications. :P

At the moment, I'm looking to transition from short films to feature lengths. Last November, I completed a short film called "Alastair Tembylton", (weird name; I know), with an unbelievably talented cast and crew. It's controversial, so I've had shitty luck with film festivals. However, the quality is so incredible that I've had a lot of avenues open up. At the moment, I'm talking with executive producers about getting a horror script I wrote off the ground, which will star A-listers, half of whom I am friends with. While I'm nervous, I'm also very excited, as I adore the enthusiasm of my prospective crew members. Hell, even these fucking pompous Hollywood agents are complimenting me, so score!

But yeah, it's been an interesting journey. Making money off of my writing within the video game industry is cake, but not so much with the film industry, as it's completely based off of WHO. YOU. KNOW. Despite film festivals having issues with my last short, I feel encouraged by the fact that actual rape victims love the movie, which means more than winning an Oscar, as they're the crowd I was most nervous about pleasing, with the film being about sexual abuse and what-not. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, in case you were worried, I'm not jumping on any bandwagons over the Kww thing. I hope I came across as level-headed and fair as I intended. My goal in Wikipedia is to see good editors continue to do their thing and for us all to get along. ;) DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

So I was just in the middle of writing you this lengthy message about how I could promote your film work through my YouTube animation channel because it's getting a lot of hits. I also wrote about a collaboration project and offered up my number and e-mail to you. When I hit submit, the message wouldn't go through because you had sent your latest post. Although I saw the comments there, I hadn't seen yours. Given the nature of what you said, I decided to go look at it first. Just finished looking at it. Couldn't resist, could you?! I just want to know one thing. Was it worth it?! Was it worth it?! AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally think that chiming in is worth it. While it was not a good time to post on Kww's page with that, I wanted them to know that everyone dropping their beefs is imperative. Bbb23 thought there was a beef, so I needed to say that anything else like that needed to cease. Somehow, things heated up bloody fast and in order to have it subside, concessions need to be made from everyone. I do like friendship and I am not your adversary, as I know how you value friendship, which is precisely why I proposed that for everyone. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And c'mon, dude, don't be angry. You know I've always been good for arranging compromises on your behalf? Like, remember how that one fraud tried pitting you against Bbb23 for a conspiracy, and I helped alleviate the situation? Trust me. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

OMG! I remember that. That was rich, wasn't it?! Lmfao! That guy was about the worst fraud in Wikipedia history, wasn't he? LOL!!! There have been some priceless times on this website and that was one of them. LOL! I was like what the heck was that guy's aim. Haha! But you're right that I do value friendships. And perhaps my comment was poorly time and vindictive and I need to get over it. At the end of the day, I definitely understand your point though, which is to do everything to get along and keep the peace. You're right. AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely! Now, you feel free to use the "Email user" function on the left-hand of the screen to send me your thoughts on filmmaking and I will be able to get back to you! ;) DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

User:DarthBotto, I sent you an e-mail. Forewarning: I didn't keep it short. It's a mile long. ROFL! Sorry on making you read a book but I'm psyched on how far you've gotten on your road. Look forward to hearing your reply. AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Judge Judy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and Exploitation of Arbitration|accessdate=September 24, 2014}}</ref> Sheindlin rules by either A.) issuing a [[verdict]] of a specific dollar amount (not always in the full amount of what's
• ever in excess of what's requested even if she believes complainants are deserving of more) or B.) by dismissing the lawsuit altogether. When ruled on in these manners, cases cannot be refiled or

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Eunice film link

There is no need to say "(film article)", as the word/title is italicised (cf. Mama's Family, The Family etc.) and it has the qualifier "the made-for-TV movie", there will absolutely be no confusion as to what the link is referring to. I myself created the Eunice page and have updated Mama's Family many times over. So if I revert the last edit with an explaination, or kindly ask you to just remove "(film article)", I think everything will be ok. Leopea (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Eunice

I think there was a misunderstanding. The text itself does not need to state that the link is to the article on the film (the link itself is of course "Eunice (film)|Eunice"). The article text explains it is the film, and titles of TV shows, films etc. are italicised. If my last message seemed rude, I apologise, it was not intended to be. Leopea (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Drmies (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:AmericanDad86

User:AmericanDad86, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AmericanDad86 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:AmericanDad86 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jeff Fischer (American Dad!).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jeff Fischer (American Dad!).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thelma Harper Mama's Family.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thelma Harper Mama's Family.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reality legal programming

The article Reality legal programming has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced WP:SYNTH of ideas

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of reality legal programming for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of reality legal programming is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of reality legal programming until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)