User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Phineas and Ferb (again again)

I've closed it as no consensus. What is it in 2015 that makes editors insist that an RFC is still open after more than 30 days? Is there a numerological explanation, or magic? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon:, Yeah, I dunno. Thanks for the closure! The kid seems to have a POV, but no self control. Had he not stooped to sockpuppetry, it wouldn't have been unreasonable for him to request an extension on the RfC to get more input. Anyhow, it's history for now. Again, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I was also referring to an unrelated IP who is making essentially the same argument on a different RFC. I closed an RFC on Climate engineering after about 45 days, and there had been no discussion after the 30 days. An IP then asked me if I could re-open the RFC so that they could insert a comment. I reviewed the RFC again and declined to re-open the RFC, but did request closure review at WP:AN, which is in the process of endorsing the closure. The IP made allegations that the RFC was closed prematurely, just as the kid has done. The argument seems to be that any closure of an RFC is premature if the requester is about to say anything new. In the climate engineering case, there was no way that anyone could guess that the IP was about to make a comment. (At this point, I don't assume good faith, and think that the IP was planning to complain about premature closure as soon as it was closed against them.) In any case, the time to request that an RFC be extended is before the 30 days runs out, because after the initial 30 days runs out, as we saw, the bot is stubborn. (The kid could have gamed the system if he had known how, by inserting a new RFC tag rather than restoring the old one.) My comment was just that we have two editors on two RFCs essentially arguing that any RFC closure against them is premature. The one reasonable comment that the kid made is a new RFC. Since the original RFC was no consensus, a new RFC with better publicity is valid, but it will need to be watched for more sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wabbit

I know that we don't know when the new Wabbit- A Looney Tunes Production TV show will be released but I do know, or at least had heard that it will be somewhere this year (2015). ~User:MrJoshbumstead User talk:MrJoshbumstead — Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@MrJoshbumstead: Hi, are you referring to this edit of yours? First, thank you for your note. I understand your position, but only when future projects have reliable sources that support the information you are adding, should the information be changed. While you may have heard that the series will be released in 2015, it also may not be released in 2015 (for instance if the network wasn't pleased with the way the project was being run.) Content needs to be verifiable, and what you've heard is probably not verifiable. And since Wikipedia is not a breaking news site, we are under no pressure, or deadline, to report every new development about a subject, and in many cases, waiting for official word produces more accurate results than including every rumor or flimsy press release. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Guest Stars

Guest stars are in alphabetically order. Aaron Ashmore goes *after* Paul Amos. Also any and all guest stars are listed alphabetically order by their last name, not at the bottom of the list. 74.58.164.84 (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contact

Hi there, not trying to do anything that is not in compliance with your policies. Is there a way I can email you directly to understand how I can help clients who don't want to learn how to do their own wiki-updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellenatsdd (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ellenatsdd: Thank you for your understanding, it is appreciated. I prefer communications be public, so that other editors can learn if need be. A good place to start is Your First Article which covers some of the basics. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Bob's Burgers again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koala15#Bob.27s_Burgers Did you see this? --RThompson82 (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@RThompson82: The post where you violate Wikipedia's core policy on civility? Yes, I did. My advice to you is twofold: 1) No more personal attacks. We are presumably able to play in the sandbox well together like good little children. 2) Post your concerns at Talk:Bob's Burgers or Talk:List of Bob's Burgers episodes, which are the appropriate venues for discussion, and which may attract more editors, and more voices than Koala's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Its Koala, though, so they got what they gave. Anyway did you see the episode? It may still be viewable on Hulu's free site. The episode revolves around 'burgers of the day' and Bob's dad's objection to anything beyond a basic burger. --RThompson82 (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@RThompson82: I believe I might have seen the episode. Are you asking me as a friendly social exchange, or are you asking because you're hinting that since Burgers of the Day has become a plot point, that we should catalog all the Burger gags? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

HoshiNoKaabii2000's vandalism

Just noticed all these nonconstructive messages on my talk and I wanted to say thanks to you for cleaning that mess up. HoshiNoKaabii2000 seems to be just a bit off the track. Ethically^Yours! 07:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ethically Yours All in a day's work! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Hum1969

Since the user was banned from the CPTDB boards and was blocked recently, this user claims he has separate accounts like User:Trinity98789 and User:Acerdellrules1961. 135.23.145.164 (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right, that was hilarious

I don't think that's the first time I've been accused of something like that, but this was particularly funny. Protonk (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Swami Agnivesh

Hi, Swami Agnivesh is a notable Hindu reformist in India. Srikanlohs (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A.W. Hill article

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. Just want to make sure that you received the message I left on Anthony Aoppleyard's talk page. All the best. Ghostrider51. Ghostrider51 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ghostrider51 Hi, I don't think you left a recent message on Anthony Appleyard's talk page. I saw the comments at the Articles for Deletion discussion, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearing Up!

Sorry if you're confused, Cyphoidbomb! I saw your recent message on Cuchullain's talk page and wanted to address it myself (sorry if that sounds weird, I felt like I wanted to reply to Squiddaddy's message there but realized that I wasn't exactly asked to). I took a 2-month "hiatus" from editing on Wikipedia because of the weird near-personal attack that the (now de-sysoped because of what he did) user DangerousPanda gave me through talk messages, but I've been on Wikia this whole time. I was messaged on that site (Wikia) about the return of the RM and I had to reply, as I was the original supporter and still feel that the page should be moved to its proper title, but I can now see how my return could strike you as strange. I won't be on Wikipedia much after this, unless I'm needed, but Wikia is just more favorable as you can contact the Wikia Staff personally and take care of things such as the DangerousPanda incident, unlike Wikipedia where you can barely get support from an admin. Momsandy (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I also want to say that there is more than just the logo for the move's occurrence - Nickelodeon itself asks that the mark is used and does so on its official site, Facebook page, and when submitting its title to other sites such as TV.com. Please understand this, as you originally supported the move. Momsandy (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for understanding! Also, I found this article and it explains that, since Wikipedia's other articles (Teen Titans Go!, Yo Gabba Gabba!, All Grown Up!, etc.) use the mark, all titles needing the exclamation need to be named so, or else Wikipedia would lack "title consistency" (be less orderly). You don't need to comment on the talk page if you don't want to, but it seems as if the move is actually necessary and not just in our best interest. Momsandy (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

User:80.111.86.95 vandalism

Hi

I noticed you'd given this user a warning (on top of other recent warnings from others), they have also created a series of unsourced edits suggesting there is a Who Framed Roger Rabbit sequel titled Who Framed Lilo Pelekai & Roger Rabbit in production. Looks like vandalism to me, and I see some of the edits have been reverted on some pages. I would welcome anything you can do to further block this user (I don't know the procedures)

NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Curiously, another anonymous user 98.95.20.228 seems to be engaged in the same creation of a series of unsourced edits about Who Framed Lilo Pelekai & Roger Rabbit. I'm not sure how to investigate/put blocks in place/investigaye sockpuppetry but if you are able to progress I suspect it will be in the cause of truth and against vandalism......

NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @NoMatterTryAgain:, I couldn't find the Lilo Pelekai & Roger Rabbit edits from 80.111.86.95. Got any diffs? The disruption from IP 98.95.20.228 seem to have been done circa December 26, so it's somewhat late to do anything about that. Reverting it was the way to go. If there haven't been any recent disruptions, then maybe it's best to ignore. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted all the ones I could find. It was more the blocking thing, which I don't know how to do. I'll try to maintain some vigilance. NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@NoMatterTryAgain: If it flares up again, warn the new user/users a couple of times. If they persist, go to WP:AIV and file a report. Be sure to include diffs, so admins can see the problematic, recent edits as well as your recent warnings. and it might be a good idea to point out the previous disruptions to help establish the problem's scope. If you're trying to demonstrate a longer-term problem, you may have better luck at WP:ANI, since AIV tends to deal with in-the-moment vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll refer to your pointers next time NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@NoMatterTryAgain: If you still need some help, let me know and I'll be happy to take a look at stuff. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Lingaa

Hi Cyphoidbomb, I don't believe we have had the pleasure before. I see you have experience on this article page which seems to have heavy editing going on. Could I ask for your help in taking a look at the layout format for the article as it is in a mess in the bottom half (References)? There is also different box office numbers appearing on the info box and at the Box Office column. Many thanks! Audit Guy (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey there @Auditguy:, good to make your acquaintance. I didn't see a huge problem with Lingaa, format-wise. There was a reference error when I showed up today, but that was easily fixed. How does it look from your end right now? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, Thanks! But this article seems to have constant disruptions with errors on the box office numbers citations. Audit Guy (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Two-Shoes UK Premiere Date

Though silly, I've got the video of the premiere of this show, which states it was first broadcasted on Jetix on Saturday, April 18. Gonna give you the link to the clip later. -Bankster1 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Bankster1 I just replied on your talk page. Let's keep the discussion there, please. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: Unsourced Content

Hello, I read your message. The info I added is 100% correct. But, i'm afraid I can't give a source as it was in The Beano Comic.

I am a longtime reader of The Beano and I want to make sure the list of strips stay up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeanoMaster (talk • contribs) 16:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank You Note

Hello Cyphoidbomb, Thank you for your edit correction on my input on the Lingaa article with reference to Critical response. Appreciate it! Audit Guy (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Auditguy No probs. There's lots to learn, so I'm glad you're receptive to input. :) Happy editing! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Gregory Peck

Cyphoidbomb - thank you for your reply and guidance. I'm truly a beginner - indeed, not even sure if I'm replying in proper form here. May we correspond via e-mail so that I can provide you with a response regarding the conundrum at Wikipedia concerning "Catholic" and "Catholic Church"? Thank you. Dave Peters (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Dave Peters

Hi @Dave Peters:, you are indeed replying properly. You can also reply on your own page by using the {{ping}} template, as I have done, which will send a notification to most users. With absolutely no disrespect intended to you, if we could discuss your concerns on either my talk page or yours, I would find that preferable to using email, since the email account connected to my Wikipedia account is one I seldom use. Again, no disrespect intended, and I've found that most subjects are fine to discuss openly, as long as we are not being slandering anyone, as such discussions are often of benefit to other editors who might have similar intersecting interests. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb - I saw your undo of my link to "Roman Catholicism" regarding Gregory Peck's mother under "Early life" and thanked you. Before I saw the undo, I repeated the upgrade at the outset of the sixth paragraph under the entry for Mr. Peck's "Personal life and death." Meanwhile, I owe you the following discussion regarding the Wiki distinction between "Catholicism" and "Catholic Church" - specifically, why the former is mistakenly used as a link in the wide majority of instances when Catholic identification is called for, whereas the latter should be employed.

Prima facie, the wide majority of Wiki readers, authors and editors understand "Catholic" and "Catholicism" as altogether synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church, and by extension, Roman Catholicism. Meanwhile, from the Greek katholikόs, we have lowercase 'c' catholic in the adjective case, meaning "universal in extent" and/or "pertaining to the whole Christian body or church" (reference for these definitions is any reputable dictionary). Unfortunately, there is a Wiki page entitled "Catholic" that grossly overstates the usage and acceptance of the term "Catholic" outside the Roman Catholic Church. While perhaps technically true in an abstract academic sense, it is likewise blindingly obfuscating to claim that "Catholicism... and its adjectival form Catholic are used as a broad term for describing specific traditions in the Christian churches in theology, doctrine, liturgy, ethics, and spirituality." When was the last time a Protestant cleric of any stripe incorporated the term "Catholic" to describe his or her denomination's theology, doctrine, liturgy, ethics or spirituality? Credulity is also strained when the "Catholic" page claims that "'Catholicism' and 'Catholic' in this sense refer to the practices of several Christian churches."

Indeed, the only instance of (lowercase 'c') "catholic" in regular use outside the Roman Catholic Church is in the recitation of the Nicene Creed. Recited as a permanent part of the Roman Catholic Mass, it is at times heard in Protestant worship services, although such instances are becoming increasingly scarce.

When one proclaims "I'm Catholic," he or she is not attempting to communicate "I'm associated with the universality of Christian faith"; rather, he or she is proclaiming that they are a Roman Catholic - a discrete, human adherent to the specific religion of Roman Catholicism.

Regrettably, top tier architects at Wiki devote an entire page to what should be lowercase 'c' catholicism (though I understand its capitalization in the title bar to comply with style strictures). The page is an overwrought, hyperbolic discussion of the universal, non-Roman sense of the word, with its crime being that it creates an ill-advised "wrong turn" destination for Wiki authors and editors who wish to elucidate the biographies and histories of persons and things associated with - or formerly associated with - the Catholic Church. Indeed, after studying the pertinent pages and Wiki traffic flow for quite some time, I wonder if the raison d'être for the "Catholicism" page isn't to do exactly that... direct readers, authors and editors away from the patently proper and obvious destination of "Catholic Church."

The imbroglio could be easily rectified by converting the "Catholicism" page into a subsection (or even footnote) of the "Catholic Church" page.

Dave Peters (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Dave Peters

Salting

Generally happens after 3 deletes. Surprised the article is still around. Although there is a lot to be said for a honeypot in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Good to know, thanks! As long as an admin uses his/her tools to facilitate the whackhammer, so we don't have to write a bunch of repetitive reports, I'm cool. In my RfA (almost a year ago) one of the things I probably should have stressed is my interest in quickly dealing with these trolls instead of requiring good-guy editors to fill out so many stupid reports. Can't tell you how many of my AIV reports were declined for some silly "This belongs at ANI" reason when it was clearly another sock of some disruptive a-hole vandal. But I enthusiastically digress! I'm thinking of being community sodomized again circa late March... We'll see. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Luck of the draw on AIV reports, some admins just want to clear the backlog, others are more flexible. Admin work is a thankless, timesink, hassle which is why I mostly stopped using my admin account and actually stopped editing wiki for a year or so - I got burned out. I do use it occasionally for pretty major stuff that needs immediate handling but can't touch the same articles I've edited in my normal account per the rules for multiple accounts, although I do get tempted sometimes like in this case. Anyway good luck on your RfA, seriously we really do need more admins. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez Thanks mang! I get the general sense of that. I'll try to remember to not canvass you when I'm running again. I'm pretty much only waiting till late March out of respect for one admin who felt 12 months was a better artbitrary benchmark than the other 4 or so admins who supported a re-run in 6 months or so. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting an edit of mine, I learned a lot. Faizan 06:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I was on the go at the bar. Faizan 06:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Unintentional edit

I would just like to clear up that the edit I made to the Cleanskin (film) page was unintentional. I copied and pasted the reference from the hobbit page (wasn't sure how to set it out) and simply forgot to edit it. It's nothing major, I was just afraid that you might report me or give me a warning. - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

PotatoNinja123 Nah, when I saw the $79k gross at the correct BOM page, I figured it was an honest mistake, which is why I self-reverted the whole shebang. Thanks for the note, though! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Arnold!

The reason both the Chinese and Taiwanese templates were added is because the companies based in those countries were involved with the creation of the show. Seqqis (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Seqqis:, thanks for the note. Which companies involved in Hey Arnold! are from from China or Taiwan? Typically for the addition of categories (which I understand you are not adding) there has to be an obvious reason why a category was added. (WP:CAT) I don't see much difference with the addition of these templates--there should be some obvious reason why they are added. There is no mention of China or Taiwan in this article, and I hesitate to look at all the articles you've changed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

In the Wang Film Productions and Hong Ying Animation articles, it mentiones that the companies worked on Hey Arnold! as well as many other foreign animations they do things like painting, inking, and outsorcing foreign animations. As for the categories, I didn't think about adding them. Not all the edits I've done had the Taiwanese and Chinses templates added to them. And I understand if the templates can't be in the articles, even though you removed the American animation template. Seqqis (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Seqqis:, both of the articles you refer to are grossly underreferenced, with maybe three references total between them. I highly recommend you reconsider the changes you've recently made, as such additions should only be made if sourced prose supports them. I've seen far too many vandals corrupt articles with nonsensical company and national involvements (see Fidelis ofoajoku) to base any template additions like these solely on superficial article content. There is also an argument to be made about the criteria that determines the addition of these templates, but that is a secondary discussion. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism notice to User:ItSmileyRiley Might be a bit harsh?

I know you've been editing longer then I have, but I felt I had to bring this to your attention. You left a vandalism notice on ItSmileyRiley's page for this diff: [1]. You said there that you had given a recent warning to not remove references, but if you did I couldn't find it on the GMW revision page or on their talk page. Granted, what the user did wasn't a great idea, but going through their edit history, it appears this was good faith from not being on Wikipedia that long. (They opened an account November 2014, and they just started editing regularly last week.) It doesn't appear to be a single use account (they've been editing other Disney-related articles), so I feel like this is a case of WP: Don't bite the newcomers. Maybe before flagging for vandalism you could leave a less-harsh notice explaining why we need the refs in the episode tables first?

Sorry if this comes off in any sort of not-friendly way. I'm just trying to keep this from escalating. Luthien22 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I just saw it. I still think the vandalism flag is a bit harsh, but I can now see where you're coming from. Luthien22 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Luthien22:, I don't mind constructive criticism! I can see your perspective that it might be harsh. I don't recall the specific timeline, but there were other concerns too, like this removal of reference and embedded note which was repeated by a different editor, which set off my sockpuppetry alarm. I opened a case on them, although it's not my best work, since DisneyChannelFan18 has only edited one article a few times. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I can see where you're coming from on the sock puppet, though I don't think there's that much evidence yet either way. I'll follow the discussion and see how it ends. Thanks for understanding! Luthien22 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Child labour

Sorry about that. I don't see many links that are supposed to go through labor (childbirth) that come from labour. I was thinking about the right link, but obviously clicked on the wrong one. Thanks for fixing that! -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 02:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Niceguyedc: Always happy to lend a helping hand. You do good work. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

69.203.27.146

I have blocked the IP for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to let that one go for the moment—they backed off after getting a last warning 40 minutes ago. (Of course, I doubt that alone means they've turned over a new leaf). Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: You're the boss. But I would be remiss if I didn't point these things out. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk)

Re:

Removing the series overview table from the main page is a growing trend I'm seeing, and it should be. These boxes don't help the main page at all. Grapesoda22 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Grapesoda22: Actually, we discussed the issue of series overview tables at length at MOS:TV and there was clear support for series overview tables being included in the main series article. That's why WP:TVOVERVIEW was created. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@talk page stalker: Why should it be included? Honestly it doesn't help the main article that much. The whole purpose of these tables is to help the episode list. On the main page its an awkward table that just gives a history lesson on the premieres and the finales along with an episode count, which is excessive for that context on the main page. Grapesoda22 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, @Grapesoda22:, since you did not participate in the discussions that led up to WP:TVOVERVIEW, I don't understand how you can say with any authority, "The whole purpose of these tables is to help the episodes list". Prior to the establishment of TVOVERVIEW, there was no purpose or even any discussion about them. Only recently did we establish a purpose: to summarize key aspects of the episodes, like the number of seasons, number of episodes, start/end dates, and ratings if available. The fact that editors who never/rarely participate in community discussions are removing overviews as a "growing trend" doesn't make it appropriate or helpful. You are always welcome and encouraged to participate in discussions at WikiProject Television to help shape new guidelines. It would be more helpful to voice your opinions on the front end, rather than asking project members to justify existing guidelines to your satisfaction after the fact, or to ignore guidelines because they don't fit your world view. You are a good editor and we need more voices at the WikiProject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, "to summarize key aspects of the episodes" is why the table is included in the main article. Grapesoda22, your argument that the table is "to help the episode list" and "these boxes don't help the main page at all" is almost exactly opposite to what editors were arguing. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright I'm stupid, I said it can we let it go. Honestly you don't have to rake me across the coals like this. It's fine Grapesoda22 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has said you're stupid, and we certainly don't think that. You're a good editor that we're just having a disussion with. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

semi protected edit request

Hi Cyphoidbomb. You can add:
importScript('User:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper.js]]
here to use a script that is helpful for these.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  21:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh very cool! Thanks a bunch, @Becky Sayles:! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Cyberchase

I understand you trying to help clean up the cyberchase article, however some of the edits you have made do not have a source (like last names). Also, removing the iconic lines was not necessary as each character is uniquely represented by the signature line they used.

See Cyberchase's homepage for the signature lines: http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/cybersquad/ I suggest you review your knowledge of Cyberchase before you attempt any edits, or at least make a new section in the talk page.

Ians18 (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ians18: - Hi there, thanks for your note. It's always helpful to included diffs when you are addressing specific problems. I make 80-100 edits per day and I don't spend much time at Cyberchase. I don't know which last names you are suggesting that I added. If I "added" them, it was likely because someone removed the content without explaining why, and I reverted them. Last names would presumably be mentioned in the primary source (the series) and wouldn't always need to be sourced. If you are familiar with the series and you are certain the last names aren't mentioned, then I have no objection that they be removed, and your edit summary seems to sufficiently address this.

I removed the iconic lines and iconic actions in this edit with a fairly clear explanation, but I'm happy to expound: Simply because something can be sourced, and simply because something appears on the official website, doesn't guarantee its inclusion or imply that the content has actual encyclopedic or academic value. In this case, there is no context that explains the significance or utility of these "iconic" lines and they come off as unimportant catchphrase trivia, about as useful as "his favorite color is blue". In contrast, Captain Marvel's catchphrase "Shazam!" is noteworthy because it is what he has to say in order to transform into Captain Marvel. Mork's "Na-nu, na-nu" has received oodles of attention in magazines and newspapers over the decades, which would make it noteworthy. So, unless you can explain how this content in Cyberchase is noteworthy, I don't think the content belongs in the article. I'll open a discussion on the talk page. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: The last names were added by IP 75.162.16.77. I don't see any reintroduction of the content by me, so I had nothing to do with that. Also I've made some changes at the List of episodes article that conflict with some of your recent edits, particularly with the use of 2013–TBD in the section header. The changes I made bring the article into conformity with WP:TVUPCOMING. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey! JTS names

Well, I was researching a little about the show's name. It turns out that the series was renamed in all European countries (with the clear exception of UK, Netherlands, Italy and France) to Jimmy Cool, as various of the Jetix channels which broadcasted the series were pan-feeds, which means those channels covered various countries with a same videofeed but different audiotracks according to the countries' languages, with an aditional English audiotrack, being the main of those channels, leaving the rest audios to be just localized translations of the track (example: Jetix Scandinavia broadcasted in 4 languages for each country, including English, being this audiotrack the one which leads the channel. The rest of the other audiotracks are just translations of that track) thus leaving the renaming of the show as obvious, as the phrase "Two-Shoes" of the show wouldn't be understood by a great majority of non-English speakers. The Jetix channels which were video-shared feeds are:

• Jetix CEE (Hungary & Czechoslovakia) with 3 audiotracks: Hungarian, Czech and English (main)
• Jetix EE (Romania, Bulgaria & Russia) with 3 audiotracks (later 4, and again 3): Romanian, Russian (until 2009), Bulgarian (from 2007 without continuity's translations) and English (main)
• Jetix EMEA (Adriatic, Turkey and Middle East) with 2 audiotracks: Turkish and English (latest one is main)
• Jetix Scandi (already explained above)

Well, the thing is, if you search every TVRIP of those channels broadcasting the show (you'll find them easily), the majority of them will have the opening as "Jimmy Cool" as decided by Jetix Europe Ltd, an enterprise which in the show's credits, are given the status of "Partner Producer" (Produced in association with Jetix Europe) and the main business who brought the show to Europe in 2009, leaving it with the rights to distribute the show, participate in the development of the animated series and ensure the leading-partner network, in this case Teletoon, to send the show to dubbing studios for broadcast in different languages, and the acreditation for such acts to be named the original network the show was intended for (the other one would be Disney XD, but it replaced Jetix in the US after the deal was made with Teletoon [2]). In conclusion, the Jetix brand has its right to be called the intended network the Jimmy Two-Shoes series would be focused in. Disney XD is just a continuation of the Jetix brand and, thus, not making it a Disney XD co-production until Season 2, as the production of the cartoon started in 2007 and ended in late-2008. ([http://www.licensemag.com/license-global/jetix-europe-steps-forward-%E2%80%98jimmy-two-shoes%E2%80%99 article which states the anticipation of the premiere of the series by late-2007)

And for the Quebecois French name of Jimmy Two-Shoes, Jimmy l'Intrépide, it's normal that it should be accredited because it was made by a Canadian production studios, which means it would intend to distribute the show in Canada on English and French as original languages intended for the major-speaking populations of the country. That's why Teletoon, on its English and French-language counterpart, broadcasts the cartoon with those names. The thing I do not understand is why the French Disney XD channel change the name of the show to Jimmy l'Éclate for all its broadcasting countries (La Francophonie) if the name fitted correctly.

As for this response, I beg you to put, at least, the European or the Quebecois variant of the name. In Europe, it's most known as Jimmy Cool due to the reasons I've written above, and because it had major audience than the other name variants, which should be put in the Broadcast section.

Well, it's up to you! -Bankster1 (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bankster, thanks for the detailed note. I'm happy to yield on this since you clearly know more about it than I do. Whatever you think is best. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Beachbody

Hi Cyphoidbomb, thank you for the edits. I noticed your deletions of some of the products listed. These were meant to give a more accurate representation of Beachbody as a company today. Insanity and P90x are some of the very first programs and there have been a lot more releases since then. I am just curious as to why they are the only ones listed. I am also curious as to how some companies like Les Mills and Zumba lists their products on their Wikipedia pages. Thank you. Vevapf (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, could you please clarify my questions above? It would be very helpful to understand the guidelines better especially as they refer to company Wikipedia pages such as Zumba and Les Mills and others that list their products on their pages. When is it acceptable to Wikipedia for a company to list its products and when is it not? Many thanks! Vevapf (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Vevapf: I apologize for not responding sooner. It is important that we present content as it is seen through the eyes of reliable secondary sources, rather than simply hitting on the talking points that a primary source (for example the company's website) would want. The FitnessMagazine reference seems a little sketchy to me because it is encouraging users to buy the product and thus may not qualify as a secondary source that is independent of the subject. The American Fitness reference looks unambiguously like a press release, which makes it problematic for the same reasons. As for why other articles get to contain problematic content, around these parts we call that an other stuff exists argument. If there are problems in other articles, those need to be fixed as well. I can tell you that all those ® symbols at Zumba are grating my nerves and I may remove them by the time you read this. (Update: I did.) Other things to consider: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list. We should have a general understanding of the subject without turning articles into endless lists. We really should be including notable products in the article, not simply listing everything the company has produced. That's why they have a corporate website. If that's somewhat clearer, lemme know. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Cyphoidbomb:, Thank you for clarifying! This makes a lot of sense. Vevapf (talk)

The Dubs

Thanks for reverting the vandalism, which has been going on intermittently for a few years. The article talk page might shed some light on it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: Ah! Pure wit! I recognized the name "Patrick Bateman", which is what set off my alarm, and "Check Em" was additionally dubious if we were talking about a group from the 50s. Oh kids. When will they ever grow up? Happy editing, and thanks for the note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Indian movies don't get importance from Metacritic and Rottentomatoes

Your view we do not summarize critical response. We use scores from aggregators like Metacritic and RottenTomatoes.

Indian movie reviews can be a aggregated through international business times review round up --Frost The World (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what this means. We are not aggregators. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Pointless message

I already reverted your pointless message. Thanks. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@JosephBarbaro: As is your right. But if you keep editing without first achieving a local consensus, or getting a new consensus at the MOS:TV talk page, you will very likely wind up blocked. These are not "pointless" messages. You are being given tools to help you address your problem. What you do with them is up to you, but you should know that this isn't the JosephBarbaro show, this is a community project. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I know this isn't my show. I'm not trying in any way to act like that. I'm not a type of person who is full of his/herself and act a certain way that he/she thinks makes them look of something or whatever. Please don't make any smartass comments towards me, will you? No? How amusing. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox vandal

Hi Cyphoidbomb, just a note that I've set the infobox vandal edit filter to disallow and it stopped every edit they tried to make with the latest IP this morning, so hopefully we won't have to waste time reverting this guy anymore! Sam Walton (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Is this about the Ile De France guy? Good work! Which reminds me that I have to learn more about edit filters... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Turns out it isn't working properly, but as a fault of edit filters generally it seems; User_talk:MusikAnimal#Special:AbuseFilter/653 for more info if you're interested. Bottom line, keep your eyes open! Sam Walton (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Miller

There's a link to a Bernard Miller that's incorrect. That bernard miller did not cowrite "I Can't Stand the Rain", I did. Please remove the link to his page. My web page is http://newcovenantfellowshipchurch.org/about/pastor-bernie-miller/. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berniemiller (talk • contribs)

@Berniemiller: Hi sir, I noticed the edit you were making at Supa Dupa Fly. I have fixed the link so that it points to Bernie Miller (pastor). You can see my edit here. We don't add links to external websites in the body of articles. We typically have External links sections at the bottom of pages, but we have to be very choosy about links to add. I don't think we need to add a link to your church page—it will just be confusing. Instead, the link I added will allow readers to learn more by sending them to the correct article about you. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your incorrect CSD tagging of Tavares Jamal Cherry

"(...) he came to prominence playing the Evil Guardian (...)" (emphasis mine) is an indication of importance. The article shouldn't have been tagged with A7. Remember - a7 is not about notability, it's about significance; however poorly asserted, if it's there, it's there and a7 doesn't apply. Also, there's no indication it's an autobiography so I removed that tag too. Be more careful when tagging articles in the future. That said, the guy does seem to fail GNG so you may consider proposing the article for deletion at AfD. 190.93.193.7 (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar of Integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I saw your comments on the talk page for the article Tavares Jamal Cherry, and was moved by your inclusion of the anon position for retaining the article, which you didn't have to include but did anyway. To me, that demonstrates that you are a person of integrity, and in recognition of that fact I hereby award you this Barnstar of Integrity. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Thank you sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fairly OddParents

Thank you for continually fixing the incorrect air dates that keep appearing. I had panicked a little thinking I had missed the episode "Fairly Old Parent". 204.58.244.4 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The "vandalization"

Listen, this IP right here that vandalized Gadget and the Gadgetinis or whatever, this is a school IP. I'm not making an account, but hopefully I can clear up that whoever the vandal is, it's a kid (hence why (s)he was vandalizing kids' shows).

--38.140.22.150 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk Liso20

I understand,

I will start working on a better cast. I am new to Wikipedia, and a fan on LPS so I was just trying out my thoughts. Thanks, Liso20s

Welcome, @Liso20:! If there is a way to incorporate real-world information in the character list that would be ideal. We're not locked into just providing character descriptions. If there is a noteworthy story about how a certain actor was picked for a role, we can include that sort of thing as well. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liso20 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, BTW do you know if their is any way for me to add an entirely new page. I want to do it about the 5 elements, (not the Chinese ones.) Their is no article about them yet. Thanks @liso20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liso20 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Liso20: Your best bet is to start with the Articles for Creation process. This is designed to help new users get articles up to speed before releasing them in the wild, as live articles get put under a lot of scrutiny and can be quickly deleted, which would be frustrating. You might also want to take a look at the short video at Referencing for Beginners, since the ability to provide sources is crucial. Lemme know if I can help you with anything else. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Apology

Hey, Cyphoidbomb. It's fine that you don't forgive me for what happen about nearly a week ago. Just wanted to say my bad for my actions over at the List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes article, as well as all the excessively ruthless insults and degrading remarks that I also said on the contributions. I do regret all of that, and I promise myself that I'll be respectful, sensible, and calm, and take any disagreements over at the disccussion/talk pages without breaking any more rules again. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@JoesphBarbaro: Your apology is well received and appreciated. I think we all sometimes forget there are human beings on the other side of the computers. Good luck, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

POKEMON XY

Do you not like it? Season 18 has the same title as Season 17. Nothing is added so in order to make things easier when it comes to making the two separate pages, they have to be Season 1 and 2 for XY sake, but they're still listed as Seasons 17 and 18 for the overall show sake. I think it works out fine. - Jabrona (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jabrona:, thanks for the note. I'm not familiar with the series, so I don't understand what you're going for. We need to make articles intuitive and accessible for people who don't understand what the series is. All I see from my perspective as a casual editor is that S17 and S18 for some inexplicable reason contain content from S1 and S2. If there's something noteworthy about Season XY, then maybe we need a clear prose description before re-introducing this content? There are other weird anomalies like a subject header "Pokémon: Best Wishes! (Series 4)" which is followed by a sub-header Season 14: Black & White, when Series and Season are used interchangably between UK and US to mean basically the same thing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, allow me to fill you in on all of this. The show is split up into five different generation eras each marked as a "series" containing 3-5 seasons each. So each generation era is kind of like a different show (labeled "Series 1", "Series 2", "Series 3", and so on) except it's not marketed as such and all the seasons are counted together. For example, the first season of the Advanced Generation series is the first season is of the AG series, but it's Season 6 overall when counting the first five seasons of the first generation series it's following after. So far, each season has had it's own title so there was no need to ever put "Season 1" or "Season 2" in any season to differentiate a couple. But with Pokémon XY (the FIFTH generation series as it's titled "Series 5") it's different since there's no subtitle added to it's second season (Season 18 overall) and it's basically the same as Season 17. Since Season 17's page is listed "Pokémon XY episodes" it's rather hard to make a Season 18 page since it would also be titled "Pokémon XY episodes" and we can't have two pages with the same title. The solution to this would have to label the S17 page "Season 1" and S18 would be "Season 2". Fans of the show would see that these are two different seasons and they'll see that the Seasons 1 and 2 labels are just for the XY series, and not the whole series overall. Does this make more sense to you? - Jabrona (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This is mind-boggling to me. I only pray another casual user will make sense of it. Is there any way to avoid redlinking sections? If so, I'll yield on the matter, but I think the issue could be supported with prose that explains what's going on. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is mind-boggling, but lots of fans of the series would get this. We are currently on Season 18 overall, but it would be Season 2 of the XY generation series. They'll understand the "Season 2" label since Season 18 doesn't contain a subtitle so we wouldn't have to use "Season 2". Like with the Advanced Generation series, you have each season titled differently: "Advanced", "Advanced Challenge", "Advanced Battle", "Battle Frontier" so no "Season 1" or "Season 2" label would have to be used. Every other generation series (Series 1, Diamond & Pearl, and Black & White) have different subtitles for all their seasons. With Pokémon XY, it's two seasons are both are just "Pokémon: The Series XY" so the Season 1 and 2 labels would have to be used so they can have different pages with different titles. I'm not sure what you mean by "redlinking sections". Care to explain that to me? - Jabrona (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

tldr; there wasn't any consensus for this mess you went ahead and made. Also, Wikipedia never has, and probably never will cater for fans. That's why they made Wikia. —KirtZ^Message 08:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what I did was nothing more of a mess than what you're doing. How dare you criticize me and then not even read any of the discussion that should have you think otherwise on this with how you're all "too long didn't read" remark. You're being silly here. If anything what I did was a good faith edit and you should be very proud of me I came up with the proper solution for this thing. Like I told your friend Cyberpower on his page, perhaps I should have started a discussion but I didn't think to do one. I saw there was a problem with how this was to be handled and I immediately jumped in to solve it in perhaps the best way possible. Both seasons have the same title and the fact that they're different seasons show they should have separate pages. You can't get a "Season 18" table by itself on the main page if it's on the same page as Season 17. I was only trying to be helpful and did was perhaps the best idea to handle this two by having a Season 1 and 2 label of XY and you just bring me down and spit at me. Shame. - Jabrona (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jabrona: Well, to be perfectly honest here, I yielded entirely out of exhaustion. I needed to get some sleep and I wasn't in a great frame of mind to get into the details. I think whatever you are attempting should be discussed on the article's talk page since it has clearly been met with some resistance. I think the "mess" descriptions levied by @KirtZ: aren't particularly helpful and only serve to diminish the efforts of Jabrona, who is presumably editing in good faith. Since I also believe KirtZ is editing in good faith, maybe we should avoid the zingers and just start again with a clean slate without dwelling on the past, if possible. That said, I do not, however see any specific value in this edit which results in redlinks (the links are red, i.e. they do not point to existing articles). Across the entire project, we typically do not add new sections unless there is content. In the linked edit above, there isn't any content, only links to non-existent articles. More specifically, per WP:TVUPCOMING, we don't create new sections in List of episodes articles until such a time that an episode table can be created. Since there are no episode tables here, the changes don't improve our understanding of the series. Since I think I've properly explained my personal objection, if you, Jabrona, still think that some changes need to be made, you should start at Talk:List of Pokémon episodes and explain your position to people who are more familiar with the series than I. (I don't know jack shit about it! But I am a decent WikiGnome.) Regards, and peaceful editing, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already started a discussion several hours ago on the Season 17 talk page and so far only one person has answered to it. As for the redlink thing, I think I understand what you mean. But I eventually made the page so it wasn't non-existing for long. - Jabrona (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Just for your info

I noticed this new userid on one of my watched pages: I Dislike Cyphoidbomb

I've left them a note, but take action as you see fit. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The user is now indeffed. I recommend sorting through their edits to see what damage has been done. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens and Binksternet:, thanks. Likely sock of HoshiNoKaabii2000. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A.W. Hill Revision as of 05:14, 10 February 2015

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Ghostrider51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Don't remove cleanup templates without providing a rational explanation, or fixing the issues the templates complain of. (TW)) Okay. I thought I had provided citations for all factual assertions in the article. That's why I removed the cleanup warnings. I'll leave them alone! Ghostrider51 (talk)

@Ghostrider51: Another user has removed them with explanation, so I'm yielding. Thanks for the note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Maelbros

Though for some reason your ping at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maelbros didn't work I happened to find my way there anyway. I hadn't realised that these IP edits were characteristic of this user (Maelbros). Having just looked through their contribs it's precisely what our IP hopping friend has been doing. Unfortunately they seem to be getting around the edit filter recently (I can't say why for obvious reasons), but I'll be taking a fresh look at it all now that I know who the culprit is. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad you wound up there, @Samwalton9: and lo do I dislike the delicate nature of that pinger! I only mentioned Ile de France IP because they were the most recent vandal at Ella the Elephant. There are two more accounts that might warrant a look. Check out the edit history of List of programs broadcast by Teletoon:, you'll notice NEW SAJ has been blocked, and The MXE is on his way. They might be related to MadamQuerouxTheSurname. I don't know. An IP user on MXE's talk page accuses him of being 75.82.92.70, which geolocates to Beverly Hills, California, not to France, though. The interesting thing about MadamQuerouxTheSurname is that she says she's reverting (or inverting?) an edit by Maelbros, but I searched the last 1500 edits at that article and don't see Maelbros' name. Suggests knowledge of the vandal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I found a sock of ChrisRock1998

User:TheWikiRock1998, aside from having a similar username, appears to be targeting the same pages as ChrisRock1998. However, he's made only one contribution under this account, which I reverted per WP:BANREVERT, so I don't know if I should take it to WP:SPI yet. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Reruns?

Are rerun dates needed in a "list of TV shows" article, even if they're sourced? I used to have a list of reruns here, but deleted it after thinking it was unnecessary and looked cluttered.--Phil A. Fry (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Phil A. Fry:, I don't personally see the value of including reruns in List of TV shows broadcast by XYZ network articles, if that's what you're asking, except for networks that specialize in reruns, maybe. I personally don't see the long-term value of knowing that Doug ran on Nick between YYYY-YYYY and aired reruns in 2009, 2011, 2012-2013 or whatever. My feeling is, "So what? Networks rerun crap all the time. If we were to log every date range and network on which I Love Lucy ran in reruns, we'd never get anything else done. Anyhow, you might want to float this question by WikiProject TV to get a wider range of opinions. I think it would be good to get new voices over there, as well. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I have noticed the copyright violation notice on The New Adventures of Nanoboy Page. But I managed to rewrite it by scratch and update the character info for Oscar/Nanoboy and details next to the title to avoid infringement. Agentmike41 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a grammatical improvement."

"Hi, this edit did not make the article's grammar better: "She is tough like her son, as well as has visited and cared for Eric a couple of times in the Maxum Mansion." Did someone teach you that you should always change "and" to "as well as"? That's probably not a great idea unless the resulting change makes grammatical sense. Please proofread your changes before committing them to the page.": No but they did teach me that you should not do "and," and "and,". The whole point of a comma is to avoid saying and all the time. There are some times when one has to say ", and" or "and," but it is best to avoid doing such.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Michael Demiurgos: There are other ways to improve the content without the inappropriate use of "as well as". In the first sentence, we already have "also", which makes "as well as" unnecessary. In the second sentence, "as well as has" is problematic. There is nothing wrong with "She is tough, and has visited and cared for Eric..." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I disagree with your last set of arguments: "There are other ways to improve the content without the inappropriate use of 'as well as'. In the first sentence, we already have 'also', which makes 'as well as' unnecessary. In the second sentence, 'as well as has' is problematic. There is nothing wrong with 'She is tough, and has visited and cared for Eric...'". I do not think "as well as" was used inappropriately. How is "as well as" problematic in the second sentence?

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not an English teacher, so if you need a more detailed explanation that is rooted in the nuance of English rules, you should feel free to post a question at the Wikipedia reference desk. However, to my experienced ear, I feel the following:

This is a long-ass sentence that can be broken up in better chunks that more clearly convey the premise of the series. It's not clear anyway what "must also contend with" means, since the prose doesn't really indicate the what the disappearance means to the subject, Eric: "While dealing with intense sidekick training, Eric must also contend with the disappearance of his superhero mentor, Maxum Man, and keep it a secret from the town of Splitsboro, his strict guardian Maxum Brain, his grumpy teacher, Professor Pamplemoose and the evil Master Xox."

Aside from being a bit of a run-on, there isn't anything inherently problematic with the use of and. That said, and assuming there are no factual inaccuracies, (I don't know the series) I imagine this prose could be broken into something like: "While dealing with intense sidekick training, Eric must learn to deal with his sense of loss at the the disappearance of his superhero mentor, Maxum Man. He must also keep the disappearance a secret from the town of Splitsboro, his guardian Maxum Brain, his teacher Professor Pamplemoose, and the evil Master Xox."

I'm sure there is a more elegant way through that as well.

With regard to the second sentence, when do we ever use "as well as has"? It's clunky. "She likes to eat sandwiches as well as has eaten donuts"? That doesn't flow at all. A simpler way through that is, "She likes to eat sandwiches and donuts" or "She likes to eat sandwiches, and she once enjoyed a donut." It simply would not make sense to replace and with "as well as". "She likes to eat sandwiches as well as once she enjoyed a donut"? What? A better way through the second sentence (again, depending on what specifically is being conveyed, and this is not clear from the current prose) might be something like, "Although she is tough like her son, she is occasionally depicted as tender, such as the few times she visited and cared for Eric in the Maxum Mansion." To your earlier comment about avoiding multiple "ands", yes, we avoid excessive ands like "I like peanuts and butter and jelly and jam and gophers." But you can write, "I like peanuts, butter, jelly, jam and gophers." And especially when things are paired like Phineas and Ferb, you can absolutely use ands. "I love bangers and mash, Phineas and Ferb, and peanut butter and jelly" without having to resort to "I love bangers and mash, Phineas as well as Ferb, and peanut butter and jelly". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing Jim'll Paint It

Sorry for undoing your edit to Jim'll Paint It. I didn't mean to bother you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.215.79 (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@178.208.215.79: Appreciate it. I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page in case you wish to participate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Totally Spies! B-stories

Thanks for setting the standard for List of Totally Spies! episodes. Subplot sounds more natural than side story and B-story. I have not seen sources from the production company that have distinctly called those stories a B-story, which is why I converted those where I saw them, otherwise I would have kept that terminology around. You might see some resistance from those who want to make the summaries more like the wikias. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: You're welcome! Keep up the good woofing. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

hard rock cafe athens

it will open new hard rock cafe at April 2015 in Athens as you can see here http://www.hardrock.com/cafes/athens/ the old shop it is closed! complete closed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante77782 (talk • contribs)

Hi @Dante77782:, I appreciate the note. References should be added to the article at the time you submit content. There's a built in tool that makes this very easy. Please see the video at Referencing for Beginners. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with Hill+Knowlton?

Hi there Cyphoidbomb, I'm trying to find editors to help improve a company article and since you're listed as a member of WikiProject Companies and have been (relatively) recently active on the page, I thought to reach out and see if you'd be interested in taking a look. The article is that for Hill+Knowlton, one of the largest and longest-established PR companies in the United States. Currently, the article's content suffers from POV issues, focusing almost entirely on a handful of more controversial clients and work, and providing little to no information about the company's history and overall operations. Specifically: the article's History section is just five sentences long, and the only other section in the article is a Controversies section.

If you'd be interested to take a look, I've proposed a new draft written from secondary sources on the Talk page. To be clear, I'm working as a consultant to H+K and won't make any edits to the article myself. Instead, I'm hoping to find editors like yourself to review the draft and move the content into the live article if it looks good. If you'd be able to help, please take a look at the full request on the Talk page. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions at all. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for this edit. I accidentally reverted 2 out of 5 edits in a row, instead of reverting to the last good version. @NDKilla^^^ 13:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@NDKilla: Happy to help! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Assistance needed

You are cordially invited to assist TheMeaningOfBlah in constructing a draft for a restaurant article, which can be found here. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish...

...that I hadn't edited Wikipedia so much. After 118,000 edits I sometime get "vibes" from editors, but then I can't figure out why. Sometimes these vibes come from a single post after a series of others. I'm getting one now from an editor at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. He reminds me of an editor I've had dealings with in the not-too distant past (although in reality it could be 3 years ago) and who turned out to either be a sockpuppet or got blocked. I'll be damned if I can find the relevant posts though. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: It's Dogmaticeclectic reincarnated as three disclosed accounts that have been in existence for years. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'm not doubthing you, it's just that, rather ironically, just after I posted here I was looking for the discussion about WP:TVINTL and "English-speaking" and ended up at his new talk page. Co-inky-dink or not? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: User:Mdrnpndr discloses secondary and tertiary accounts User:Mdrn (since 2008), and User:Pndr (since 2010). Also, this. User:Pndrmdrn appears to be yet another one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all three accounts are disclosed on my user page... oh, and if you really want a trip down memory lane, how about the fact that it was User:AussieLegend who reported one of the two older accounts for removing fair use images that I had uploaded a few years back? Good times, good times! Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure I said that three are disclosed. The fourth account doesn't appear to be disclosed on all the accounts. When you started editing Microsoft articles in August 2014, had your topic ban ended by that point? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think I'm that stupid? Also, WP:HOUNDING much? (I don't recall ever seeing you edit Microsoft-related articles...) And the fourth account is the one I'm using right now, obviously. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, so tempting to reply to the baited rhetorical question, but I'll pass. Your "hounding" inference is cute, but absurd. Awareness of another editor's previous sanctions doesn't imply hounding, and neither would asking questions about a previous, publicly discussed topic ban. But anyhow, not everything's about me me me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, since you were nice by avoiding the temptation to insult, I'll be nice by reminding you that you should remember to click on the links at the bottom of user contribution and log pages when needed; otherwise, you may end up with multiple date mistakes, as you have in this section. Mdrnpndr (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to accept that correction. Definitely sloppy and poorly referenced on my part. Mdrn seems to date back to 2006, Pndr seems to date back to 2010, Pndrmdrn dates back to circa 2012, as does Mdrnpndr (give or take a database loss or two in the late oughts and/or other mistakes of mine.) Out of curiosity, and of course I don't actually expect you to answer, (although I am inviting you to answer on the off-chance that maybe we could better understand where you're coming from) was there a particular incident or string of incidents that inspired you to pursue community changes with what looks to me like a giant chip on your shoulder? Though you could infer that as an insult, I don't think it's indemonstrable that your approach to community editing has been less on community and more on exasperation, exclamation, and passive-aggressive templating. But to maybe pave the path with a few grains of niceness, I definitely don't think you're stupid (I actually consider you extraordinarily sharp) but in my experience, your social interaction is needlessly prickly, which is something no average editor would respond well to. If you can enlighten, I'd be interested in listening, otherwise, I'll accept the implicit "I should go fuck myself". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that – it's very rare that I get a positive message around here. And my apologies for the above abrasiveness – after jumping from page to page arguing with a certain user I wasn't exactly in the best mood for responding to your comment regarding the topic ban. (Note though that you missed the other date error – I actually resumed editing Microsoft-related topics much sooner after my topic ban expired than the date you mentioned.)

I do indeed feel wronged by the community. I continue to feel that all of my past blocks were at least partly unjustified – if not entirely in terms of their existence (though some certainly were) then in their ridiculous duration compared to those given to other users. The topic ban, of course, was nothing more than community opinion getting out of hand – there was nothing in the so-called rationale for that that couldn't have been resolved simply by discussing it with me, as I had already shown a willingness to correct the few actual mistakes I may have made (relating to edit warring in particular). Yet this is not the reason you're looking for.

The fact is – and I do feel somewhat uneasy saying this even here given the ridiculous rationales for my past sanctions – that there are certain users here who don't simply ignore WP:OWN; no, they seem to have misread it as saying the exact opposite of what it does. It is almost exclusively my repeated conflicts with these users – and of course their legions of sympathizers, including a number of administrators – that causes the traits that you mentioned observing (not to mention that led to my sanctions). I don't think this problem is solvable unless I simply ignore fundamental issues with the pages I edit and focus on the small stuff like many others seem to have (although even that small stuff is often reverted by said users), or unless WP:ARBCOM itself gets involved – though I've been unwilling to request that latter step thus far.

(Hmmm... actually writing this stuff down already makes me feel better. I guess I should thank you for that too...) Mdrnpndr (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm extraordinarily sleepy, so I can't invest time in replying now, but my hope is to reply tomorrow (and I say this genuinely) with a mindset that is geared toward peacefully asking you back into the community. I've been tempted numerous times to respond to your pissy templates with more pissy templates, (and I'm being honest here) but I resisted the urge for a number of reasons. Let's talk tomorrow. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notice

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request_for_Comment whose outcome could affect WikiProject Film. You may wish to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at RobertMfromLI's talk page.
Message added 15:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the heads up. Came across the edits patrolling Recent Pages. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Since you've had multiple interactions with this user: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Editor605_is_NOTHERE.2C_long_term_abuse EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback|tad102

Half of the internet's legitimete data is based on 'user' contributions, and ImDb is a widely recognised and respected website, linking it to virtually every movie/tv show's, etc description page so that argument is rather shallow! You are also absolutley right, wikipedia is a community based site so continually acting as some self appointed judge and removing people's posts/edits is hardly the spirit of the site! (A further user edited my revision without removing it entirely thereby excepting the source!) Your intial revisions I understand and agree with, however I reverted your last edit as I had followed your intial advise and sourced the information therfore your edit has no merit. Kindly stop being so destructive of other people's work as this harms the very basis on how this website was created and is managed. If you were an administrator or creator of this site you may have more say in such matters but you are a contributor only, just as I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tad102 (talk • contribs)

@Tad102: I'm not interested in getting into an esoteric discussion about half of the internet's data. Wikipedia has specific guidelines for what constitutes a satisfactory source per community standards. As I have already explained, IMDb is not considered a reliable source by the very specific Wikipedia standards detailed here. We also do not care for speculation or original research to be included, which is what you are introducing when you repeatedly submit (without providing a reliable source) that production on Kung Fu Panda has ended. And yes, while we are all contributors here, if your (or my) contributions are problematic because they contravene existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then they should be changed. Obviously you have good intentions. These changes happen all the time and it's nothing personal. Not sure what you mean by "a further user edited my revision without removing it entirely." If you mean this edit, that was performed by me. I removed the IMDb reference as unsuitable (because it doesn't meet WP:RS) and also as unnecessary because we can directly observe in the episode list that ten episodes have not aired. I did, however, again delete the unsourced statement about production for reasons that should be obvious by now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Behaviour

There is no need to be rude. I was giving you advice actually, that if your rude to people like that you might get blocked, I think you will be finding yourself explaining you behaviour to 5 albert square. Kris, Victoria = 5 (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Highly doubtful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Category vandals

I've been reverting these edits since the end of Feb. There's a bunch from similar addresses, see my contributions for a list. I'd range block them if I were an Admin. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy Tree Friends - Broadcast & Owned (reverted my Information)

Hi, My name is Drajat Achmad Imransyah or Imran from Indonesia. By The Way, Happy Tree Friends is not broadcast in National TV Station Indosiar because KPI (Indonesian Broadcasting Commission) can't allow any violence cartoon/anime in Television. And where do you got a information about Happy Tree Friends owned by Surya Citra Media? That is a HOAX. Thank You. imranfreak (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2015 (GMT+8)

Licence for image

I want to upload this image [3] of James Murray. What licence do I need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickuptha'Musket (talk • contribs) 23:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pickuptha'Musket: If it's an image you own the copyright to (typically the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo, not necessarily the subject of the photo) you would have to release it under Creative Commons Share Alike. If it's not an image you own, you should probably read this. I'm not too familiar with image upload specifics, so you will likely find better answers at the Wikipedia Help Desk. Hope that helps, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Zap2It "listings" (not "episode guide") now lists Sofia the First premiers

I agree Zap2It's "episode guide" is not a reliable source of dates, only titles. However, Zap2It's "listings" are highly reliable, and FYI they now show all 3 premiers airing back-to-back on 3/27: http://tvschedule.zap2it.com/tv/sofia-the-first/upcoming-episodes/EP01510762?newEps&aid=tvschedule — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.109.224 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@24.35.109.224: What's the confusion? For weeks, random editors have been changing the proposed air dates without providing a better source. The existing sources are attached to the episode titles and do not support the air dates. If you've found a better source for the air dates, bravo to you. Please provide it as inline citations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: No personal attacks

"your recent edit summary is inappropriate..." In your POV, that is, I think. I don't think that uttering the word "fool" is necessarily taboo. Is there a rule against name-calling, perhaps? Classicalfan626 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Classicalfan26: All the relevant links are on your talk page in the comment I posted. If you are seriously trying to suggest that calling someone a fool could be considered appropriate, I'd love to hear your argument for a giggle. You're more than welcome to ask a few admins what their POV is on the matter. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to ridicule me? (rhetorical question) In terms of the word "fool", unless there's something against name-calling, it is a technical term that means lacking good judgment, so in that case, it is to inform others of wrongdoing. And as far as I know, it is far less severe of a term than say "idiot" or "moron" in society. However, if there is a consensus here on Wikipedia against using that word in correspondence, I will be happy not to utter it on this site. Are you OK with that? Classicalfan626 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Classicalfan626: WP:NPA There's no reason for you to call anyone any sort of disparaging name, which I think was fairly clear, and adequately linked on your talk page. And though I understand your natural reaction to be defensive, asserting that the word "fool", in the manner you used it, is a technical term, is clearly wrong. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I guess you think it's not necessary to establish a consensus for either side. I guess I can agree with that. Name-calling is uncivil is what you're trying to point out. I'll do my best to stay civil, even if it means avoiding calling someone any kind of derogatory name. Classicalfan626 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Classicalfan626: Your open-mindedness is much appreciated. It's always difficult to accept criticism, and no offense was intended. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Clubeditor

Some of the talk on the Civitatis International page is not relevant and the page is being vandalised by several users, why do you have an interest in this page? Refrain from vandalising this page further.Clubeditor (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubeditor (talk • contribs)

@Clubeditor: Why I have an interest in the page is of no concern to you. This is a community project, and whattayaknow, I'm part of the community. As noted on your talk page, you should probably become familiar with talk page guidelines before removing comments from that page. The discussions appear to be related to vandalism to the article, which in my experienced opinion, is relevant. I will also point out that if you continue to remove the discussions without achieving consensus on that very same talk page, you might very quickly find your own account blocked for edit warring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Can't think of subject name but please read anyway.

Can I at least keep relying on IMDb for my information about movies then, even if it's not a reliable source here? Marcman15 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marcman15: In your personal life? Why would that be up to me? If you add content to Wikipedia it must be verifiable. IMDb is not considered a reliable source, thus, information you find there should not be added to Wikipedia. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok well I don't need to be bashed on every time I make a mistake.Marcman15 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marcman15: Who's bashing on you? You asked a confusing question, I answered it to the best of my ability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me?

I'm having issues with the close of the runtime RfC at WT:TV. The closer seemed to concentrate on the "stopwatch" part of the question and not whether or not we should cite runtimes. In his edit summary he said "Sadly, this cannot end in anything that will be enforceable" and on his talk page he's said If someone wants to start an RfC to discuss whether inline citation is required in the infobox or not, always assuming that the source of the figure is established from reliable independent sources, then that is a different question (emphasis added). But, the RfC question asked whether we should cite runtimes, so it's not "a different question", it's one that he's ignored and, to make it worse, Tenebrae has taken this to mean that it's OK for him to change the documentation for {{Infobox television}},[4] and to removing running times from infoboxes.[5] Am I reading this wrong? The change to the infobox is redundant, since every cite is supposed to be from reliable, third party sources, but that is another issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: The whole shebang was very confusing to me and got very big, quickly. I was going to suggest asking Guy, but I see that you've engaged him already--am I wrong to assume that his explanation helped you understand his closing comments? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

From what he's said it seems the whole RfC was pointless, as he indicated in his edit summary, because the RfC question was effectively "Do we have to use reliable sources or can we measure times using a stopwatch?". However, Tenebrae believes this means he can add a pointless and misleading statement to the infobox documentation. *sigh* --AussieLegend (✉) 06:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Badlapur

I am rather surprised at the bias being shown here. Information from Koimoi is being deleted as 'opinion', Taran Adarsh has on the very first week declared the movie to be a Hit. That was also removed. WEhat in Wiki's opinion is the defintion of a commercial hit?? I believe Koimoi has given a very transparent scale by which all movies are being measured. On top my edits are being called 'promotional;;' which is just a subjective guess by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.44.195 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@122.169.44.195: Hi, I have opened a discussion at Talk:Badlapur (film), which is the most appropriate place for this discussion. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)