User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Hello

(Moving from TTTE Thomas's talk page) I understand what you are saying. And he is the real Lee Pressman. --ACase0000 (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

ACase0000 - Who the person really is, is only part of the concern. The other is about the quality of his information and the ability for that information to be verified independently of you. But since you understand what I'm saying, you understand what I'm saying. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. :) Have a nice day/night. :) --ACase0000 (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hey, Sorry to bother you again but I need some help. Can you please link me to the place where you report users for vandalizing?

I have given said user 3 warnings. Thanks for helping. --ACase0000 (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @ACase0000: You can report users at WP:AIV or WP:ANEW depending on what you need to report. Amaury (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Amaury: Thank you. :) --ACase0000 (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

YTV content removal

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_YTV&diff=676420624&oldid=676416021 you removed some series because they were in reruns instead of currently airing new episodes.

However when you did that, you did not add them to formerly airing. Now they are not on the page at all. Could you please restore them somewhere?

Perhaps we could have an intermediate heading for reruns. They are more notable than what is no longer airing at all, but less notable than what is airing new episodes.

It also begs the question: at what point after receiving no new episodes on the channel should a series be called rerun-only?

At what point after no reruns air do we demote something to former?

I was thinking a year in either case since it's easiest to do math with. 64.228.90.1 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberchase

A copyright notice? You do realize all the work on the page will be lost if no admin comes around to verify that it is indeed not violating copyright, right? Since you are an admin, why didn't you edit the parts you felt were copyright violations so that the notice would be rendered useless? That would be more useful then completely blanking the page and putting a giant copyright notice up. WikIan -(talk) 05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned kids show

Hey Cyph. Doing some color clean up and came across Alex & Co a Disney Italy show. Given your exemplary work in this area of the project, figured you could advise on how to proceed with it. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Request your feedback on the points that I have made

I have put forward some points here. I would request your opinion in this matter. Talk:List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV#Regarding_notability_and_removing_future_programming. This is related to these edits by "TheRedPenOfDoom" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV&type=revision&diff=678690487&oldid=678690215 Manoflogan (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(Edit:) I hope that I was civil in this section Talk:List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV#Regarding_notability_and_removing_future_programming. I don't want to get into edit wars or flame wars, but "TRPOD" keeps deleting the entries because he thinks that the references are not reliable, even though they have proven to be correct and are by third party and primary sources. What would you advise? Every reference is attributable upon challenge. Manoflogan (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

EDIT I have explained my position on the talk page User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#List_of_Programs_Broadcast_by_Zindagi providing sources in accordance to WP:BURDEN. He has continued to revert my changes here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV&type=revision&diff=679163964&oldid=679157423. He removed the references in cited revision edit and then removed the entries in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV&type=revision&diff=679170890&oldid=679169080 because according to him they are UNSOURCED (emphasis mine) I have also informed him on his talk page User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom#List_of_Programs_Broadcast_by_Zindagi. Is there anything else that I should have done?Manoflogan (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:PR10000

Some time ago you commented on PR10000's talk page regarding his edits. He's still being problematic with them, persistently adding unsourced content and content that is not supported by citations that he's added. I've had problems with him today at Under the Dome (TV series), where he's added claims of cancellation. I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page because he just kept deleting attempts to discuss on his and now he's being problematic at Restaurant: Impossible. I can't fix the problems at Under the Dome and I expect some of my fixes will probably be reverted because he just doesn't seem to understand the need to provide citations. There's a bit of OR in his edits too. I'm really not sure what to do about him. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend

Numerous source references are added while AussieLegend continues to add absolutely nothing to these same articles while lording over those same articles but adding nothing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PR10000 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources you've added at Under the Dome don't support any of the claims you've made and the changes at Restaurant:Impossible suffer the same problems. Much of what you changed at Restaurant:Impossible simply isn't sourced at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have responded to this issue on PR10000's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was just drafting something here regarding PR10000 but it seems you were already watching. This post, along with this change seem to answer the question of whether PR10000 is from a PR/advertising firm. Oh well, now I'm off to remove {{in use}} and see what happens. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

AussieLegend continues to disagree with reference to the host of the show's statement that the episode title is "Holiday Impossible," AussieLegend also continues to remove the tables built for season 12 of Restaurant Impossible, AussieLegend continues to impede season 2 build of the tables for List_of_Fresh_Off_the_Boat_episodes page until we had to take the extreme measure of posting a production slate to satisfy AussieLegend's approval of allowing a season 2 table to be added to the article. AussieLegend forbids references such as these to be added to the main article for Under_the_Dome_(TV_series) regarding the shows props that will be sold on August 27-29, 2015. AussieLegend continues to state I am a PR firm which is false. PR10000 (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

AussieLegend And I asked this person once, then twice if they represented a PR company. They silently blanked both times, then tossed up a passive-aggressive cyberbullying wikilink. I was about to express my disgust at that (on account of their trivialization of a very serious matter) but pulled back after Elizium blanked the page. Not a fan of what's going on at this account. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

On August 9, 2015 CBS affiliate WRAL-TV reported that the sets used for the TV series Under the Dome have been torn down. I have posted this on the UTD talk page since I have been given a warning about posting to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PR10000 (talk • contribs)

References

PR10000 The place to discuss this is on the article's talk page. Please sign your posts with four tildes like, ~~~~. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Clearly, PR10000 is refusing to get the message. These edits to Restaurant: Impossible required these fixes for a nett change of this He still doesn't understand the concept of verifiability. Much of what I removed was completely unsupported, WP:SYNTH, or complete ignorance of what he has already been told. I've already given him a final warning,[1] so giving him another seems redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

PR10000 I'm not sure what you're confused about. In the Restaurant Impossible edits, I see that Aussie fixed a number of problems created by you. For instance, he removed a reference from the number of episodes column, he suppressed an unsourced air date of October 29, 2015, he removed a number of speculative "Ambush: {{TableTBA}}" titles. You also added unsourced future content at List of Fresh Off the Boat episodes including production codes, air dates, and a writer credit. I'm also not clear on why you're using Angry Asian Man as a reference or how this Twitter account qualifies as a reliable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have asked Aussielegend politely to stop his behavior on my talk page and he will not move on from the past incident when I was blocked, I have accepted what I understand that I was doing wrong, but it is not helpful behavior on his part to continue doing what he is doing on my talk page, it is Wikihounding, I think it is time for someone else to step in. Thank you.PR10000 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

PR10000 I don't know what specifically you are describing as Wikihounding. Also, JamesBWatson appears to have stepped in to offer you some advice. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I was discussing matters with JamesBWatson, so Aussielegend decides to tell me I have formatted my responses on my own talk page all wrong trying to belittle me and citing policy about talk page responses and how I have messed up my own talk page, If it is bothering him so much he could just stop looking at my talk page. I want to move on and he needs to move on now and stop, He is certainly free to bring up new matters but not the past, at this point I guess I will have to stop responding at all if I want him to stop his behavior against me. I have explained to him that he is a policy expert and I am not, I thought the talk page was an informal environment to discuss matters and he is still just throwing policy into a talk page response I made to someone else, it is overboard, I also notice he is following me around, I decided to add two resources to Cristina Lago and all of a sudden AussieLegend is there when he has never edited a single article related to an actress on Rede Globo. Not against the rules but highly suspect! I asked him to help guide me though by looking into an edit I made to Dr._Ken and offer constructive criticism so I could learn but he didn't respond to that.PR10000 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Under the Dome (TV series)

The editor's issues continue, including: repeated addition of primary sources, one of which links directly to a CBS network announcement with video; leaving instructions to editors to ignore policy; claiming to blank his/her talk because s/he received the message(s), yet re-adding the disputed data after said blanking; etc. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

ATinySliver believes no one else has the right to contribute any sources to the article, again like others believes they own the article while not contributing any sources to the article and only deleting sources added by any others, my talk page has nothing to do with it.PR10000 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

PR10000, encyclopedic policy has everything to do with it. Go read What Wikipedia is not. Immediately. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Added the following source ATinySliver repeatedly deleted it.PR10000 (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

References

PR10000, I'm not going to be baited into an edit war with someone who so steadfastly refuses to abide by the policies of an encyclopedia, which include the use of reliable sources and the avoidance of aggrandizement, including blatantly promotional material. I'll let the admins handle this one. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, for the record, the source specifically cited above was removed per WP:OVERCITE which, because PR10000 is insisting on including the official CBS press release in addition to the reliable, secondary (read: news) sources therein, also becomes a WP:PROMO issue. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 00:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Great idea, I would like to know also, first I am told my sources aren't good enough by editor AussieLegend, now I am told by ATinySliver my sources are unacceptable because they come directly from the primary source. So which is it, sounds like another way to run me out of town.PR10000 (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

ATinySliver's concerns were about a block of text that read On August 31, 2015, CBS cancelled the series, and announced that Under the Dome would not be receiving a fourth season. CBS also confirmed the series finale in a promo produced for broadcast on September 3, 2015. The series finale will air on September 10, 2015. after this edit by PR10000. I don't think that PR10000's inclusion of the reference was excessive, and although the text was rather wordy, it wasn't citation overkill. One ref per sentence is generally acceptable. Ironically, an IP did trim the wordiness appropriately,[2] but ATinySliver reverted to the "pre-PR10000" version.[3] I have to come down on the side of PR10000 here. Including the series finale date is something that should be in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

I am not arguing (and have never argued) that it shouldn't. See my reply to Cyphoidbomb below. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet your deletion removed that very fact from the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, shit, you're right. I'll be more careful reviewing edits; removing that data was not my intent. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Aussie. I'm not sure what ATinySliver's objection is to the inclusion of a primary source for something that takes place in the future, like a finale. We can't base large portions of our content on primary sources, certainly, and we shouldn't use a primary source for facts that would be controversial, but I'm just not getting the problem in this instance. Please clarify anyone? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Two issues: three citations for a short passage, when the lead passage is from a news site, is overkill. Second, the promo itself, beyond the primary/secondary issue, is literally CBS PR: these promos are produced for the sole purpose of getting its viewers to tune in to the show, which is to benefit the network and its advertisers. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting anything, unless I'm reading WP:PROMO wrong. Am I? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, one citation per sentence is more than acceptable. The IP's edit removed mention of the promo from the paragraph, so that's a non-issue. That left two citations, one stating the series has been cancelled and the other confirming the end date. WP:PROMO doesn't apply there since the citation was being used in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. -AussieLegend (✉) 19:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My point, had I concluded it properly, was that all of the data in the graf was covered within the EW story; to add the CBS press release and then the slick promo was, in my view, blatant aggrandizement. Meantime, see above; my last edit that page was a screw-up. xP —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Screw-ups are understandable, I've had ongoing problems with PR10000 that are relevant to this discussion. Today I removed some WP:SYNTH at Restaurant: Impossible,[4] which was then restored,[5] and made worse.[6] In cleaning this up,[7] even I got confused at one point, getting an edit summary wrong. Hopefully PR10000 will read my explanation before he inevitably deletes it. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So I still can't even determine what you policy experts concluded here about the Under the Dome ref since this discussion has become so convoluted and gone back and forth so many times, it seemed like Aussielenged, which was really a shocker for me, was kind of defending allowing what I referenced to stand at least partially, then Cyphoidbomb was even wondering about the reasoning for it's removal, which goes to show the following, WP:IAR + WP:Five_pillars #5 "Wikipedia has no firm rules:" This is not an article about a historic event, this is an article about a TV show, which is now cancelled, so I am not sure how CBS, which is a "free" over the air network is "aggrandizing" it, that could not be further from the reality, I think everybody is drowning in so many rules that they are not focused on the articles themselves and they are instead focused on looking for ways to nitpick and display hyper-criticism of others. So instead of constantly lambasting me, why don't you try focusing on adding your own sources to enrich an article, like better sources when they become available, instead of just looking for policy methods to cite to remove other sources in the meantime, I think it is a huge waste of valuable time to keep fighting over something so trivial like an article about a tv show.PR10000 (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a novel idea, PR10000: instead of crying "why me?" as if we're somehow out to get you, you could try actually reading the policies to which you've been pointed on several occasions and which you just admitted you haven't read. You have failed to read even this discussion: my final edit on that page—you know, the one to which Cyphoidbomb and AussieLegend have been referring—was my error. My only error. To say that a CBS press release and slick promo urging people to watch the final two episodes of the series—and, they hope, its sponsors—is somehow "free" and not aggrandizing is naivete at best (and, given your user name and editing history, that would afford you one hell of a benefit of the doubt). To say we should add "our own sources to enrich" the article is at best disingenuous and at worst a straw man; as I point out above—which, again, appears to be among the items you've failed to read—the news story by Entertainment Weekly—a reliable, secondary news source—covers all the data in that paragraph. To add any sources invokes OVERCITE; to add CBS aggrandizement invokes PROMO. There is nothing convoluted about it. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Bella and the Bulldogs

I just split the episode contents to List of Bella and the Bulldogs episodes. Fearing the controversy vandals may return, it might be worth applying NeilN's protection to that page as well. Amaury (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Amaury. We don't typically protect articles preemptively. If the POV editing returns, we'll deal with it then. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong title

It is not published on only news website that ₹250 crore budget of Bahubali was for 2 parts of the movie! And, for box office gross, did you open the reference page and read the full article or just posted the information only by reading the headline of the news page? I will suggest you to visit the reference page and read the full article and then post the correct information! Kindly don't make a bad reputation of our well reputed site (Wikipedia). Raaj494 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Raaaj494 The first part of your response makes no sense to me. Part 1 of Baahubali according to this reference is Rs. 120 crore, and that's what we should be focused on. If you disagree, open a discussion. As for the second matter, NDTV cites Koimoi as the source of its Rs. 378 crore claim, but 1) the Indian Cinema Task Force is lukewarm about Koimoi's estimates, and 2) I can't find such a claim at Koimoi. Thus, the current reference is being challenged. Note again that these values are estimates, not facts, and they should be treated accordingly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Consensus"

I don't know what the hell that means, anyway how do I "seek" for consensus before moving a page?

SethAdam99 (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

SethAdam99 Do they not have online dictionaries in your region of cyberspace? Open a discussion on the article's talk page and propose a move. For extra credit, find a relevant WikiProject and invite them to the discussion. You can often find these projects listed on the article's talk page. For Carlos Molina (Mexican boxer) the relevant WikiProjects are WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Mexico, and WikiProject Boxing. Other articles might have different WikiProjects. If a reasonable time elapses and nobody objects, you can relocate the article. See WP:CONSENSUS for more information. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No need to insult me mate. SethAdam99 (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

SethAdam99 True! Now imagine if I'd called you "gay" or a "cancer"! I think my point has been made. Moving along, a good rule of thumb if you don't understand some Wikipedia terminology is to look it up in the search box by typing "WP:" before the term you're interested in. So "consensus" would have led you to WP:CONSENSUS. If someone says, "Had to revert this, because it's original research", looking up WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH would lead you to our policy about Original Research. And so on. Hope that helps, and if you have questions, feel free to ask here. I busted your chops to make a point. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I would've said anything to you mate but because you have internet power to block me I made a wise decision not to so jog on mate. SethAdam99 (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

SethAdam99 If you're not interested in talking to me, you're also welcome to ask questions at the Help Desk. Please note that you still appear to be mis-marking your edits as minor. [8][9]. I strongly advise changing this behavior. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Or what? SethAdam99 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually regret being an asshole to you and I have now realized that you are in the right and I am in the wrong, I am sorry and I hope we stay in good terms and I will try my best on changing my ways. Thank you sir. SethAdam99 (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

SethAdam99 I understand your frustration and I appreciate the apology. As for "or what", the "or" is that other editors will consider minor-marked edits that aren't minor to be disruptive, and ultimately you'll have a bunch of people calling for you to be blocked. Editors sometimes consider mis-marked edits to be a way to escape scrutiny for vandalism, which I do not think you are trying to engage in. The other issues about civility and such seem to be easily remedied, and despite some frustrated lashing-out, I have confidence that you can be productive and civil here. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Request feedback about validity of source

I want to use the following URL http://www.televisionpost.com/television/zindagi-launches-new-drama-in-afternoon-band/ as a source about a program being broadcast on Zindagi. This is the correct information and be corroborated by https://twitter.com/zindagi/status/633180202101682176 and https://www.facebook.com/ZeeZindagiTV/photos/a.228970673964964.1073741828.225241597671205/377607922434571/. This conforms to the guidelines listed by WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Would you consider this a valid source? I think that it does. Television post publishes blog posts about the television, movies and other media but the company also offers detailed research information for a fee. "TRPOD" feels that the source is in this case is some one's personal blog, so it should not be considered. But I think the site represents a valid source because the information is verifiable and attributable. Once again, the source is http://www.televisionpost.com/television/zindagi-launches-new-drama-in-afternoon-band/ See

• http://www.televisionpost.com/about-televisionpost/ and
• http://www.televisionpost.com/research/

Your advice on whether this site represents a reliable source would be gratefully appreciated. I would like to request feedback about the following commits if possible. I believe that the information does not violate the guidelines of WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:PRIMARY and therefore can be used as references to determine that a series indeed premiered on a particular date.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV&type=revision&diff=679854444&oldid=679851801
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV&type=revision&diff=679860434&oldid=679854444

Manoflogan (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Manoflogan - I'm not jazzed by the TelevisionPost as a reference. It looks like two guys running a blog and I have no expectation that they're doing any fact-checking. Once the site has earned a reputation as a reliable news source, then it could be used, but it shouldn't be used before that time. What's wrong with using the Twitter source? Too many uses as a primary source? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb - The social media have never used as sources. I used them as proof that the series is being broadcast to show to TRPOD before he starts getting into edit wars in the comments and the talk page before he started deleting entries. There is a section on the talk page Talk:List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV#Sources_and_attribution with more details. Unfortunately TRPOD is now getting edit wars about upcoming broadcasts. I have explained my position here Talk:List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zindagi_TV#Regarding_future_programming_on_Zindagi_and_your_concerns_about_rebroadcasting. I will see what he says. Manoflogan (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your active contributions as well! JustBerry (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit to List of Danny Phantom characters...

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Plasma Phantom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply to your response: Ah, I see. Got it. I couldn't find the credits for that particular episode, and their first names were never actually mentioned in an episode (as far as I recall). Thanks for checking that. I just wonder why that character was incorrectly referred to as "Thurston" on that article for years. . . As I said, I just thought the sudden "Jeremy" replacement was vandalism. Plasma Phantom (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Plasma Phantom Yours was a reasonable response. I appreciated the explanation. Regards and happy editing, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

About 68.196.80.124

Similar geo location to 68.199.15.200 (talk · contribs) - Sock IP of User:Jt029350? Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez could be. I know that I've had problems with New Jersey IPs with some overlap in New York. Optimum Online seems to come up often. Tenafly is a city that comes up a lot as well (68.196.80.124 geos there). Unfortunately the revision history search feature is not working so I can't search my edits for that tag. Grf! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits response

You're right. I'm trying to follow what you and some other people are claiming. When it comes to Transformers: Rescue Bots, I thought the cast list was needed after separating the characters into their own page. I was wrong and I apologize. The other part I was doing their was moving the headings underneath the television section. If that was also wrong, I apologize for that as well. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Rtkat3 Your apology is appreciated, but I still very strongly question your ability to understand exactly what you are doing that is disruptive to this project. The fact that people have told you numerous times to stop with the excessive detail is very troubling to me. You continue to make edits that are inconsistent with MOS:TV or other style manuals, and I'm just not convinced that you can distinguish between useful detail and cruft. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hey - would you mind taking a look at this edit and see if RevDel on the edit summary is appropriate? The edit itself is fine, just the summary. Ravensfire (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI, it was handled. Ravensfire (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ravensfire Sorry I missed that. Clearly ridiculous commentary that only fosters hemorrhoids for anyone editing in this area. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

That's enough

That's enough Cyphoidbomb. AngusWoof had to Restore additional voices characters for Yuri Lowenthal so they get a chance to survive notability concerns first since the entire filmography has not been scrubbed yet - see the talk page.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Manjhi - The Mountain Man

Dear Sir,

I have done the needful in the article Manjhi - The Mountain Man. I have given new references for cinematography done by Rajeev Jain (Cinematographer). Please correct me, if I am wrong.

Regards,VishwanathanNair (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Baahubali Gross as per Box Office India

Gross is updates as per Box Office India, as it is most frequently used on Wikipedia for Indian films gross.
http://boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/whatarethefinalnumbersofbaahubaliandisitthebiggestgrossereverinindiaandworldwide#.VefuPiWqqkp
Q. What are the final numbers of Baahubali and is it the biggest grosser ever in India and Worldwide? Ans. In terms of nett gross it is the biggest grosser ever at 361 crore nett (all versions). But as regional film the entertainment tax is less in its main regions as compared a Hindi film which releases in mainly higher entertainment tax zones. The gross box office is 441 crore which is a little less than PK making it second biggest ever in India. Worldwide gross is 517 crore which is fourth best ever after PK, Bajrangi Bhaijaan and Dhoom 3.
--Conradjagan (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Conradjagan This needs to be on the article's talk page where the rest of the community can scrutinize it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Its already there on the article talk page with detailed table for gross

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baahubali:_The_Beginning#Need_to_add_table_on_patterns_of_other_Hindi_films

Extended content

Baahubali: The Beginning worldwide Collections breakdown Territory Territory wise Collections break-up India All versions Nett. Gross: ₹361 crore (US$45 million) Hindi version Nett. Gross: ₹112 crore (US$14 million) Distributor share: ₹100 crore (US$13 million) Entertainment tax: ₹80 crore (US$10 million) International (Outside India) US$11.5 million (Rs 76 crore) US$6,738,000 (United States-Canada) Worldwide ₹517 crore (US$65 million) References

--Conradjagan (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Big Brother: A gala affair!

Okay so I need to have a word with you. I've been avoiding this discussion for a good week now and I think it's about time I let it out.
I really do not get why this cyphoid nuke keeps falling on Indian Big Brother articles and not ANY of the parent US or UK Big Brother articles. Soon there will be 18 celebrities entering the Bigg Boss house and their details will be listed, as usual, in table form. It is just how it's done. [10] [11] [12] [13][14] No one here is trying to go against you but if you are going to turn everything into prose it's going to severely mess all these articles which work under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother. Please take a brief look at the links I've added. I don't want an ongoing quarrel with you for the entire length of the ninth season of the Indian Big Brother because this season's article will be shaped exactly like its predecessors.
Last time I saw you on a talk page it was some RedPenInRearEndWhatever and I joked with them about how my article had feelings (It literally takes a 5-year-old to identify that the writer is kidding but anyway...) you were very quick to intervene and tell me off. I can answer condescension with condescension but I choose not to. I would appreciate if you'd employ a similar strategy. Cheers. --LulzWhateven (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

LulzWhateven I'm not sure if I understand what your chief complaint is, but my impression is something like this, which I'm sure you'll appreciate since it sounds like you have a sense of humor:

"Hey, there's a problem with the airbags in these cars coming off the production line."

"Yeah, I know! All these cars have broken air bags! But don't worry, Hyundai and Chevrolet are building their cars with broken air bags too!"

"Well shouldn't we do something...like, fix the air bags?"

"Pfft! Not until Hyundai and Chevrolet fix their airbags! Keep the line movin', keep the line movin'."

If there's a problem at Indian Big Brother articles, for instance here where we see an over reliance on poorly-constructed tables that contravene WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:COLOR, is your argument that they shouldn't be fixed, and in fact, we should continue to write problematic articles and defend the creation of the new articles by pointing at the problems models elsewhere at Wikipedia? Please clarify. That said, there is an obnoxious level of detail here for instance, which seems to attempt to reproduce the nuanced experience of watching the series through the use of text walls, ridiculous tables and the cataloging of insane levels of detail, instead of providing a general overview of the series' most significant points. I do not know how someone who is blind, for instance, is expected to negotiate that article if they're using a screen reader. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to get my point across to you when you don't want to understand it. I do not work for a company which is in competition with Hyundai or/and Chevrolet. Instead Hyundai or/and Chevrolet are my employers. I'll get fired if I fix the air bags before their engineers instruct me to do so. I've tried to make this as clear as possible for you but perhaps you'll, yet again, try to counter with the same argument. There is a reason why my company's name is Hyundai or Chevrolet and not LulzWhatEven. I hope you've understood by now that being a member/employer of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother/Hyundai or Chevrolet we must adhere to a certain layout/car design for Big Brother articles/cars and hence the tables/airbags. You can take up the issue here and get it sorted? I'll get more users to aid you perhaps? Let's make this a better place! --LulzWhateven (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

LulzWhateven, I really don't feel that you've articulated a clear point that is easy to comprehend, which is why I asked you to clarify. If what you are saying is that because other Big Brother articles have convoluted excessive detail that we must continue the practice in spite of existing global community guidelines, like being observant that some people have visual impairments, or that the television editing community prefers prose, or that excessive plot details could constitute a copyright violation for being a derivative work, my response is: that's nonsense, and we need to take steps to bring things back to earth.

I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother and I see statements like, The need for a large amount of tables has been eliminated with the integration of colours in the infobox, but the use of one or two as a way to clearly and easily provide information is not a bad thing. A small table can be made that needs only have two rows, and if implemented effectively, can provide information easily. I look at Big Brother 6 (Australia) for instance and only see two tables, the collapsed one in the upper right and the large, obnoxious one. The rest is prose. I don't see anything that says ponderous tables should saturate these articles and replace prose.

Are you aware of any Big Brother articles that have reached FA or GA status? If so, I'd appreciate if you'd point me to them. like to take a gander at how those are structured, since FA is ultimately the goal, and is typically evaluated by general community members. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

the thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Move_war_regarding_Baahubali -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Blockbuster

It is true that in the US, this type of terminology is not used in any official manner, but I think that in India everyone knows and lives by these sort of ratings for films. This did pass the scrutiny of the FAC review as well. BollyJeff | talk 19:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

BollyJeff I don't dispute that, however this is a global encyclopedia, not the Indian encyclopedia. Content still needs to be written in a professional tone and prepared for a global audience. I think we all agree that there's too much promotional and demotional garbage in Indian film articles. I'm simply trying to do my part to scale it back. Regards, my friend. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

hi

I'm at 3RR, have been there a while do you mind looking at my complaint[15] thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Kohwari Language

Hi Cyphoidbomb, I really have no idea why you have make change about kohwari language The Khowar language, is actually is a dialect not a language spoken in khot valley now the peoples are spread all over the chitral so we can not say Kohwari language as Khowar. please remove protection from the page Kohwari language and Khowar language. Kohwari has quarter persian words. But khowar has no persian words. Remove protection or Make correct about these language and article if you can... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Ksena (talk • contribs) 06:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Block request

I haven't tried to get someone blocked in a long time so I have forgotten the instructions to pursue such action. I saw that you blocked User:Vjmlhds so I figured I'd come to you. I need to get User:LifeTimes5678 blocked due to vandalism on TNA PPV events. I've warned him twice and he has yet to respond and just continues vandalizing articles. You can check his contributions to see the edits I am referring too.--WillC 07:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wrestlinglover, if it's clearly vandalism, you should post at WP:AIV. If it is not clearly vandalism, you should go to WP:ANI. I don't have the time to look into this right now, unfortunately. Sorry, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

(I continued the discussion with some comments on Wrestlinglover's talk page [16].) Willondon (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion proposal

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. Could you consider weighing in on this proposal at the List of Muppets discussion page? ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your Sofia the First episodes page is out of date and inaccurate. For one thing, you can tell just by the air dates that 'Minimus is Missing' is in fact the second episode of season 3 and not part of season 2 as you currently have it shown. You can also find this and far more up to date episode list on the Disney wiki http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Sofia_the_First_episode_list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.151.94 (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Arnold Season 1 holdovers

Hello, I meant to get back to you earlier about this but you remember the Hey Arnold edits that mentioned holdovers correct? You reverted them, so what would you like to see in order to convince you that this thing has merit, truthfulness, and is worth nothing? There's about six of these "holdover" episodes. Anifanatic (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Zoey 101 episodes

Hi Cyphoidbomb,

I'm noticing an edit war going on at that article between JosephBarbaro and Geraldo Perez concerning episode numbering, with Joseph contending that four multi-part episodes should be given multiple episode numbers. Geraldo has brought the matter to the talk page. I attempted to revert to before this whole mess started earlier today, but Joseph has reverted me. I don't know if this warrants temporary full protection of the article yet, but maybe you could look into it please. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't do it

I didn't add improperly cited content to Wikipedia like List of Little Einsteins episodes.

Mamb000b (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Mamb000b You're right. I pasted the wrong diff. You added improperly cited content to Wikipedia again here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

BO corruption and ethnic warring

Sending you my condolences, Shirt58 for working on a Bollywood article. Be sure to take a screenshot of what it looked like before the box office corruption and ethnic warring destroyed it. Looks like Baahubali took a toll on you in the recent times, eh? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No toll, Pavanjandhyala, and it's surely not limited to Baahubali. I think maybe the ethnic warring was new in the context of a film article. I've seen it before at articles about language and provinces in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and such. Ethnic warring is not a hobby I can comprehend.. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But it did took a toll on me. I wanted to see it as a better article, but today i feel happy if it never existed. I recently removed it from my watchlist and felt that it is better to work on stubs rather than this "India's biggest motion picture". I try to never visit it again frequently. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

bajrangi bhaijaan

Hey,can you re-edit the box office column in bajrangi bhaijaan article. Someone writes wrong things in this article. Thank you. Aslishiva (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

hello?

could I ask a favour regarding pages about the Silly Symphonies. Particularly expansions to the plots of some of them? Visokor (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Meet me at Epic Genius' talk page (the conversation you started...)

You sure love talking behind my back while I'm blocked. If you have any problems with me, talk to me directly. But if you really, really want to get brutally honest with me, bring it on, bub. I'll end it for you straight fair and square. Meet me at Epic Genius' talk page later or tomorrow and I'll go over the entire story from day one, including you and me crossing paths with one another from the List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes article to now. Yep, we will indeed have a long, long talk, so to speak. You heard me.

Pretty clearly, you were oblivious as to what happen at the List of Zoey 101 episodes article/talk page. Didn't you got notified about it already or you just simply choose to not acknowledge? JoesphBarbaro (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

JoesphBarbaro How on earth do you figure that talking about you in an obviously public forum where anyone, including you can read it, is "talking behind your back"? That's absurd. If I were trying to be secretive I never would have used your name. I'm trying to help you out because you are on fast track to Indefinitely Blockedville, and since you're not keen on receiving criticism from me, or from Swarm, or from Ponyo, then perhaps you might listen to someone with whom you've had a decent community editing experience, i.e. Epicgenius. There is absolutely nothing "behind your back" about this. And please save your "long, long talk" theatrics. The place to discuss any of this is at your talk page, not Epic's. Oh, and I don't know what specifically you want me to address at the Zoey article. Please stop speaking in circuitous, drama-inducing riddles. If you have a question, or you want me to chime in somewhere, please be direct and ask. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, forget I said anything. I'll solve my disagreements via a consensus on my own soon. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

welcome back

So which you consider a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslishiva (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Aslishiva Times of India and IBTimes are good starts. Ask the community. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Comedy Central programming

Hi Cyphoidbomb, I noticed you reverted 3 edits by an IP, one of which you did not agree with (redlinking Not Safe with Nikki Glaser), but the other two were certainly constructive (en-dash, and moving Moonbeam City from upcoming series to airing). I am not sure how to undo only those two reverts of yours without affecting the third. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Dark Cocoa Frosting Whoops, clearly a screw-up on my part. Thanks for the correction. Sorry for the hassle. I've fixed it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Rollins

Just alphabetizing the titles won (N-XT before W-WE).

Vjmlhds (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Vjmlhds Explaining your edits is crucial, particularly when you are editing in an area that has caused feathers to be ruffled. I'm confused by your explanation because I note that N doesn't come before M, and Gold Rush Tournament seems to have inexplicably disappeared.[17] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Gold Rush exclusion was an error on my part, and the NXT Championship is an actual championship, while Money in the Bank and Match of the Year are periphery achievements - all I was doing was listing the championships all together, as they get first billing, while the extraneous stuff gets listed afterwords (as is the format for all wrestler articles). Vjmlhds (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus hasn't been reached yet on wether the NXT title should be included with the WWE titles, so we should leave it the way Cyphoidbomb left it originally until consensus is reached. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

DreVog

The projection file for the ride labels him "Rollo". And if taking my word isn't enough, go look in the official book written by Jason Surrell. It's "Rollo", not "Rolo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreVog (talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Super Why!

Can you check your protection on this article? It seems questionable in three different ways:

• You've move protected but have not edit protected it.
• The vandalism is mainly by new or unregistered editors - is full protection really required?
• The protection is indefinite, which is not ideal. Do you think you could set an expiry date?

Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ Thanks for your input. I've adjusted the move protection to 3 months, and have allowed autoconfirmed users. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am a little confused about what the purpose of semi-move-protection is. According to Wikipedia:Moving a page, you have to be autoconfirmed before you can move a page anyway ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the semi move protection from this article because I still think it does nothing. If you think edit protection is required, then be my guest ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ No dispute. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of edits

Why are you removing my edits in every article on which i does editing like guddu rangeela etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslishiva (talk • contribs) 06:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Aslishiva First of all, did you read any of my edit summaries when I reverted your changes? Please do so, because that might answer your question. I have not removed your edits in "every article". I have, however, reverted numerous of your edits because you don't seem to understand what types of references constitute a reliable source, even though there are FIVE LINKS to WP:RS on your talk page. It would seem to me that you've never bothered to read the policy. If I'm wrong and you are familiar with the policy, please tell me what it is about the blog bollymoviereviewz.com that makes you think it's a reliable source as you've added here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Cookie

Lucas559 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for patroling copyright violations and poor edits like [18]

Lucas559, thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

TMNT 2012: Season 3 Finale plot

"Undid revision 682571231 by DanielC46. Source it directly. Content must meet WP:V, which means that you having special access likely does not qualify."

So what about the other Season chapters? Their conclusions are not individually sourced, and still they remain as they are. And as for direct sourcing, I suggest that instead of erasing user contributions out of hand, maybe you should attempt to perform some research before the subject's erasure. DanielC46 (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

DanielC46 Firstly, I want to say that your edit summary "Watched a pre-TV online streaming of finale episodes" is unclear. This suggests that you had access to an episode that most people would not have had access to. If I am misinterpreting that, that could be a problem. What I do know is that there is a persistent problem among fanboys that they are somehow charged with the duty of "scooping" everybody else on the details of a show. This is generally unhelpful. Content needs to be verifiable. That you had special access to an unaired episode (which is how I interpreted your statement) does not seem to suggest that the content can be verified by any other editor. Can we walk into a library and see the episode in question? Nope. Can we purchase it via a streaming service and verify the content? Nope. Is it on our TiVo yet? Nope. This is of particular importance for future events, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Now I could be wrong about how I interpreted your statement, so if the episode was available legally online, adding a link to that legal reference would have been the wise first step, because of the WP:CRYSTAL issue. The blog reference you provided is insufficient, because like any reference we include, we need to be using reliable published sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and a clear editorial policy, which almost invariably excludes blogs. So per your question, "What about the other Season chapters", the other summaries are verifiable because they contain plot information that can be gleaned by watching the already-released episodes. The primary sources (the episodes themselves) can be used for this purpose. Hope that helps to explain matters. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

My Edit in KKPK

I didn't promote the film but it was fact thing in internet I saw about it, if you want you can search in internet that it was a true thing why would I promote Kapil's movie??? You can check the edit's I've done till now I didn't post any wrong information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143 Abhijeet (talk • contribs)

I have replied at your talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Diyar-e-Dil

Hi @Cyphoidbomb, can you help with this article, the user called User:TheRedPenOfDoom is consistently interupting edits on Diyar-e-Dil page, there is a use Sammy.joseph whos edits were question by user i mention earlier. Recently I made an significant change to the article with as possible as i could with supportable references and material. But still he undid my version and he is consistently doing it, no matter how we or i present this article, may the user TheRedPenOfDoom has good history of edits or so, but i assure you i have also made several articles that are true and comply with Wikipedia eligibility. Please help me in this regard please. Fushan007 ^Talk 18:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

My Edit

that's what i'm saying mein movie ko promote kyun karungi??? meine wo review nahi suni toh mujhe laga ki aapne galat review edit ki toh meine usse delte kardi simple and if aapko lagta hain ki meine kuch galat edit kiya hain tho aap mera edit remove kar sakte hain meine toh aapko nahi roka acha theek hain ab ab wo page edit nahi karungi ok?? sorry agar meine aapko hurt kiya tho ab pls ek smile kijiye aur yeh sab bhul jaayiye.. yaar ek chotisi bhul hogayi ab meine sorry bhi keh diya so let's now forget about it :) so what's ur name?? and can we be friends?? mujhe na naye friends banana bahut acha lagta hain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143 Abhijeet (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

143 Abhijeet This is the English Wikipedia, and you should be communicating in English, please. I don't understand whatever language you are speaking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Winx Club

Hi, there's a problem with Maxie1hoi on Winx Club. If I revert again, it would be a 3RR vio. You can also look at the "discussion" on my talk page. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Musdan77: Have a look at WP:3RRNO. It's not always that clear cut and dry, but that should give you a general idea. For example, sometimes something that's not obvious vandalism, but is considered disruptive, would be an exemption, even though it's not listed there. Leeway is sometimes given. It just depends on the situation in general. Amaury (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Musdan, I have reprimanded the user. Thanks for the note. Thanks, Amaury for the additional info. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Some people have no life.....

About all I can do is revert this one but really, you'd think he'd have given up after 5 years.[19][20][21][22] --AussieLegend (✉) 14:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

AussieLegend Easily the most pathetic aspect of Wikipedia editing: the long term disruptions. Even if we assume that that someone had "done them wrong", a person who is mentally well should quickly tire of the petulant revenge campaign to pursue fruitful, constructive endeavors. Well, really, a well person wouldn't vandalize, but you know what I mean. Five years of moronic vandalism suggests an emptiness of character. At least when we deal with disruptive children, there's a possibility they will become distracted by their teenage years or become interested in constructive activities like dating. Although in some cases even that is a slim possibility. But a 2 year, 3 year, 4 year, 5 year Wikipedia grudge? They should be lying on a shrink's sofa once a week at least. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's frustrating when you have to put up with these types, especially when you're trying to deal with other editors edit-warring their opinions into articles at the same time.[23][24][25] I even asked that guy nicely not to edit-war,[26] but he decided to anyway, and then had the hide to warn me.[27] There really should be a "How to edit Wikipedia without being a dick" course that's an editing prerequisite. *sigh* --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

AussieLegend Oh no, I'm not taking any tests that I'm predisposed to fail! I've been editing more articles related to India and Pakistan lately, not from interest or familiarity, but out of necessity. As I've once before harped, the world of Indian cinema is fraught with corruption, and this translates to our articles, which are haunted by paid editors, marketing goons, pernicious sockpuppets, etc. And then once you get into the world of India/Pakistan ethnic politics, where you mix emotion into everything, forget it! It's totally nuts. This lady has, since at least 2012, been waging an online war with other online warriors about the distribution of languages in Pakistan. She uploads a map, someone disputes it, because surely language X is spoken in region Y. Back and forth. Sockpuppet. Back and forth. Sockpuppet. Back and forth. Sockpuppet. Psychologists should study this, because I'm convinced it is a form of mental illness. What's that old quote about "doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm familiar with the type. My MythBusters problem editor is clearly in denial. He's arguing that a particular episode doesn't contain a revisit of an earlier "myth" titled "Compact Compact", this despite one of the hosts saying "Cast your mind back to 'Compact Compact'" and the official episode guide saying "Jamie and Adam take on "Compact Compact" ... again". Some psychiatrist could make big bucks diagnosing and working with Wikipedia related "issues". --AussieLegend (✉) 16:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series)-related

I had sent you a thanks for reverting the anonymous contributer's wordier description for the List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters page to it's brief description...especially to those who are exclusive to the TV series. The season finale to Season 3 of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is coming out soon. If you have seen the recent episodes, what do you think of it so far and are you looking forward to Season 4? --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep doing that? I was just trying to add full descriptions to the characters! --BFlatley (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

BFlatley See article talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Danger Mouse

hello? I was wondering if there could also be some clarity on the Danger Mouse article regarding the re-imagining of Squawkencluck in the 2015 version among other character changes in it. Visokor (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Visokor, I don't know what you are asking. You might try posting a clear request on the article's talk page. I don't know anything about the revival series. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Prem ratan dhan payo

Sir please add official teaser poster in prem ratan dhan payo article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslishiva (talk • contribs)

On the subject of date ranges

I have a question about this edit. Suppose that the date ranges were in a previous version of the article, say, just before the programming was moved to the "future" section, and the ranges were never sourced to begin with. In said article, all but two date ranges are sourced. Should we eliminate all date ranges that aren't sourced and risk mass confusion, or should we keep them in? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi EB, unsourced date ranges are of no value, particularly for something that nobody keeps track of, like reruns. At least for first-run there might be some references in each of the individual show articles, but otherwise, I don't trust one single date on that page. Note also the giant banner from 2012 at the top of the article. Who has any faith in an article that has been systematically corrupted since 2012? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can just archive TV schedules on the Internet Archive through the DIY method for subsequent date ranges... ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to chime in on this since we had to deal with this on List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney. I prefer the date ranges not be listed as they are extremely difficult to track and archive, and do not give much value. It is not necessary to determine whether a show is still owned by Nick Jr when it is not airing. That the show is in the former section and that it has a sourced premiere date and whether it's a first-run (shows new episodes) or a syndicated run is much more useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Boxoffice India

Are you sure Boxoffice India is not a reliable Site ? They are here for more than 15 years ,and you needs to check this site .

Thanks Zqxwcevrbtny (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Zqxwcevrbtny Did you look at the link I included in my edit summary? I assume you did not. See WP:ICTF and search the page for Boxofficeindia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Vskapoor

I would review my sentence. I don't think you can leave a sentence there that cites news reports emanating from Pakistan, when the news report does not provide any substantive evidence. Furthermore, If you read the New York Times, you will not that the media and press in Pakistan are not free. Proof of this is to be found in a completely fabricated article from Pakistani press citing Wikileaks that was later found by the Guardian to be completely false, with no supporting data from the WIKILeaks database. I suggest you either delete the citing press comments, after which I have made my comment, or leave a version of my sentence informing readers that this is an allegation in the Pakistani media with no substantive proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vskapoor (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Vskapoor The solution is to provide a rebuttal from the accused, not to add your editorial to the article. And as I've stated on your talk page, "substantive" is interpretive and subjective. Let someone who was there at the press conference decide what evidence was presented and whether or not it was substantive. It's not our job at Wikipedia to interpret facts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Cyphoidbomb, there is a user who keep vandalized the Camp article by adding false dates that shouldn't be there, can you block him or something. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi TheAmazingPeanuts, the user has not been adequately warned. See Template:Uw-vandalism1. I'd probably start with an L2 {{subst:Uw-vandalism2|article|additional text}} and include diffs of their problem edits in the "additional text" section. If they do it again, move to L3, then if they do it again, L4. After that, you can report them to WP:AIV. Hope that helps, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, I've done the L2 warning for you. If they persist, use L3 and so on. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Brian T. Delaney Confirms he is of Irish Descent.

Via his official twitter https://twitter.com/Brian_T_Delaney/status/630981858369470465 It matters because most actors who are verified of descending from a particular ethnic group or ethnic groups, are usually referenced and categorized as such. In this case Delaney confirms he is of Irish descent so he is categorized as any other American actor of Irish or any other national descent would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.26.9 (talk • contribs)

78.16.26.9 This isn't rocket science. Per WP:CAT there must be an obvious reason why a category is added to an article. There is no prose in the article that supports that the subject is of Irish heritage, so there is no obvious reason for the content to exist. Add sourced prose first, then the category. However, there is a secondary issue of "why do we care?". If the subject isn't known for Irish-themed works, apart from trivia, why do we care what his ethnicity is? What do we care what a person's religion is if they aren't known for their religious works? What do we care if a person's gay or not if they are not known for being a gay rights advocate? That, however, is a discussion for that article's talk page. But prose must come before the cat addition. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

So you won't take the man himself's word that he is of Irish heritage via his own legitimate twitter account? The obvious reason is he is of the mentioned descent and in almost all actors or any people who have a wikipedia page their ancestry is noted and listed. He doesn't have to have done Irish-themed works for it to be listed. A person of notes ancestry, orientation, etc etc, whether we care personally care for it or not is usually noted and shown. Just look on any actors page their ancestry is usually always listed. I gave you the source of him confirming his ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.26.9 (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Twitter can only be used as a reliable self-published source if it is verified, which the account linked to is not.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 05:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry letterHimesh Kuttiyal (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, for the incovenience that i added promotional material to Prem Ratn Dhan Payo. In future, i will not repeat my mistakes.. Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh Kuttiyal (talk • contribs)

Cool, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

DanDud88

I see you've had to have a word with DanDud88 about his WP:OR. Good luck getting him to a. respond and b. pay attention to what you're saying. He is so lacking in competence to edit, and is utterly clueless. He refuses to learn to use edit summaries, much less any other policies. How he hasn't been indeff'd eludes me. --Drmargi (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drmargi! I had the opportunity to read your exchange with him before writing my own note. I too get the sense that there might be a WP:CIR issue. I've added some of his favorite articles to my watchlist so I can keep an eye on him. A good weekend to you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Same to you! My exchange with DD was a while back, but the problems remain, unchanged. It's really frustrating. He just added a laundry list of international shows to a "See Also" list on CSI's article, which I pruned down to the U.S. ones and two British ones shown in the U.S. The rest were obscure, to say the least. Let's see how he reacts. One of his favorite articles to mess with is Law and Order:UK, where he creates all manner of titles for characters. Sigh... --Drmargi (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

He added an arbitrary "see also" list at Bones (TV series) too.[28] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

AussieLegend Wouldn't it be smarter for him to just create a category for Television series about forensic pathology? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That might be a better option. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI

An IP you blocked 97.95.13.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has resumed same as 97.95.216.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Won't leave ISP notice alone. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez Thanks. Handled. New IP blocked 1 week for evasion, although original was only blocked for 72h or so. I didn't do any reverting, in case you wanted the honor punishment. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends (series 19)

Please keep Toad and the Whale', Wild Water Rescue, and Best Engines Ever. The latter has a source. --ACase0000 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I have found sources for the series 19 episodes from a PBS station. Toad and the Whale and Very Important Sheep , Helping Hiro and The Beast of Sodor , Cranky Christmas and Snow Place Like Home You can find more by going to schedule. Can you please add them? --ACase0000 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please add the episodes and sources? I can't do it on my tablet and I currently have no access to a computer. Thank you in advance. :-) --ACase0000 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Cyphoid, please respond. :-) --ACase0000 (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sum, any objections if ACase0000 adds this content with these references? I'm a bit swamped and can't do it meself. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. A reliable source = 3 verifiable episodes. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Summer! ACase0000, please feel free to add the eps and refs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cyphoid! SummerPhDv2.0 could you add the eps and refs? :-) --ACase0000 (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I didn't get the ping or if it didn't work for some reason. Better late than never.

I've added the first of the three, with a striped-down but functional cite so you can copy it for the others. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:Ampersands in writing titles

Hi Cyphoidbomb, I've read your message. Honestly I'm not an expert and knowledgeable on this topic, but I can tell you and confirm one thing: there are many Wikipedia's pages about a duo of workers (in writing, in directing, etc.) with "and", such as Vince Cheung and Ben Montanio or Andrew Nicholls and Darrell Vickers. Luigi1090 (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Luigi1090 I'm talking specifically about writers who work together often as partners, not just writers who collaborate. The Coen Brothers are an example. See this image. They work as a writing partnership, so when they are credited, they receive an ampersand. If they were to collaborate with another writer, they would be credited something like "John Doe and Joel & Ethan Coen". Here's an example: at 00:41 Look for "Teleplay by" credit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Box Office

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Luckydhaliwal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

But now the same line of 4 crore is written twice. Please check carefully. Luckydhaliwal (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Luckydhaliwal Whoops! My mistake! Sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It's okay. Luckydhaliwal (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

BFlatley

Hi Cyphoidbomb. You asked me to let you know if BFlatley continued his disruptive editing at The Dark Knight (film), and he duly has done. If it helps, other editors have also expressed their dissatisfaction with his edits at Talk:The_Dark_Knight_(film)#Plot. I won't revert his edits until you have taken the necessary disciplinary action against him, but once you have done so I will then put the plot back to the last good rewrite. It is better if I do this so you do not become WP:INVOLVED by directly changing BFlatley's edits. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Betty, I'll ruminate. I notice the addition of "Nine months after the events of..." language which I see other users have disputed. I notice similar wording here at Tron Legacy. I wonder if that's a "bug" of his. Looking into the edit-warring. Standby. I'm gonna need caffeine for this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan I've blocked the user for 48 hours. Please keep an eye open for IPs that pop up. At this article I was having a problem with IPs from Massachusetts that kept adding character bloat. 108.49.185.106, 108.26.174.18 were two of them. Flatley popped up at that article after I warned those IPs about fancruft. They could have been him editing while logged out. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. I have restored the earlier plot summary and cleaned up the mess he has caused on some other articles too. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry to do this to you, but no sooner has BFlatley's block expired and he resumes his excessive plot bloat at The Dark Knight. Looks like you and he are in for the long game! Betty Logan (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan No probs. I just press a button, tick a few boxes, and that's pretty much it. I've blocked him for a week, although I don't get the sense it will do any good. A good day to you, ma'am! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a question ?

Why won't Summer forgot about what I did ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C5:C501:16F7:91A4:96C7:20B8:6BED (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Billie Bird

I tried to submit a credit for Billie Bird but not working can you add this? and it's not listed Three's A Crowd she played "Aunt Mae" in 1 episode (Not listed)

Torontojeff (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Thanks

Award 4 U

• 
  2015 Erasmus Prize
  Awarded to the Wikipedia community collectively

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you Done?

User:Spshu has been continually disruptive on Template:Corus Entertainment and Family Chrgd and I am requesting that he be banned from editing both pages! I appologize for calling him an idiot, but he clearly doesn't know how to make an edit and, furthermore, has no business here! I am absolutely sick of cleaning up his crap! MarcoPolo250 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)MarcoPolo250

MarcoPolo250 You haven't provided any information here or at your ANI case against the user that is sufficient for any admin to take action on your complaint. And this discussion should be happening at the ANI discussion, not here. If you believe Spshu is being disruptive, you need to provide "diffs" that clearly show disruption, along with explanations of how you believe the edits are disruptive. It's not good enough to go to ANI and complain. You have to do the basic legwork. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)