User talk:Wefjkwsjkls

Wefjkwsjkls, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Wefjkwsjkls! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Real World: Portland

Welcome to Wikipedia. You removed content from Wikipedia with this edit of yours to The Real World: Portland, but without providing a rationale for this in an Edit Summary. Because that citation was a ref name citation, of a source cited more than once in the article, removing the first citation of that source caused a citation error to appear in the References section, which you can see here. When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history.

Also, you added material to the passage without a citation of a source. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here.

Lastly, a more minor point, but punctuation goes before citations, not after, per WP:PAIC.

Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Please do not add unsourced material or remove content without providing a rationale in your edit summary, as you did with these edits to The Real World: Portland. There is no indication in Episode 3 nor at the iTunes page you cited that the cast's jobs at the two eateries were part of a cast assignment given to them by the producers, nor is there any indication in Episode 8 that there has been any modification to the normal rules governing the cast assignments in seasons that include them. This appear to be an interpretation by you, and we cannot put our personal interpretations or analyses in articles. Doing so violates the policy WP:No Original Research, in particular the one prohibiting synthesis.

In addition, the name of the pizzeria is Pizza Schmizza, not merely "Schmizza". Although there is at least one sign in Episode 3 that merely says "Schmizza", other signs, as well as numerous lines of dialogue and onscreen text in that episode give the full name.

Also, punctuation goes before citations, not after it, as explained by WP:PAIC, yet you placed a period after a citation again in your last edit.

Lastly, please remember that material in Wikipedia must be written in a formal tone, without slang, unexplained jargon, etc. Instead of using words like "tweak", try using words like "modify" or "change" or "alter".

Thanks for adding that material about the name of the second eatery, and about the dog in Road Rules: X-Treme. Good job! :-) Nightscream (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced material to articles, as you did with this edit to The Real World: Cancun. If you continue to do so, you risk being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary. Thank yo. Nightscream (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit summary that accompanied your revert of my edit, you state "its in the show, doesnt need to be sourced. same way u didnt source jasmine's interest in pat or joey's dislike for job".

Wrong. Readers need to be informed where information comes from, so that it can be verified, per the Verifiability policy. They need to be informed whether it comes from a secondary source, or in the case of the show, which episode it comes from. This is why you'll notice that in all the well-developed Real World articles, as well as other TV articles like the one on Pawn Stars, all information does just that. The passage that you added did not indicate that "its in the show", nor does it tell the reader where in the show it came from.

As for your claim the information on Joey's dislike for the job and Jasmine's interest in Pat was not sourced, the first is completely untrue, and the second only partially so. The passage for Joey's dislike for the job indeed indicates which episodes that information comes from. As for Jasmine's attraction to Pat, that is covered in the Episode Table, in the Episode where it occurred (Episode 8). Nonetheless, it should be in the Cast table too, so I added it. Thanks for pointing that out, but it doesn't justify repeating that error elsewhere. Nightscream (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's No Original Research, Verifiability or Reliable Sources policies by adding unsourced POV analyses to articles, as you did with this edit to The Real World: Portland, you will be blocked from editing. For the final time: Group jobs are those that are given to the entire cast, and assigned by the producers. Jobs that individual cast members get at different employers is not a group activity, so there is nothing to "participate" in, let alone anything for there to be "mandatory". Nightscream (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's not a group job is precisely why the rule requiring cast members to maintain the job in order to stay in the house does not apply. Chicago was a group job, because they were working for the same employer. The fact that they were given different posts or tasks in that job doesn't mean that it wasn't a group job. There is no indication that the Portland producers are the ones who arranged the interviews, and even if they did, this is no different from what an employment agency does, and is a result of the fact that the producers can only film outside the apartment at establishments at which they have received clearance for filming cleared through contractual arrangements with local businesses.(Source 1 Source 2) It does not mean that the jobs constituted a group activity, much less that they were required for staying in the house.

As for Joi's reasons for leaving, there was no indication that it was because working in the jobs was mandatory. In the first place, there was no statement or other indication of this in Episode 3, which I just reviewed. Dialogue indicated that her reasons for leaving were her own dissatisfaction with the local job prospects, and her unhappiness, which was a decision that she came to after discussion with her father. No indication was that she had to leave, or that producers required her to. In the second place, she stated in the Reunion that she her main reason for leaving was because of her boyfriend's recuperation from surgery back home. If you had actually bothered to read her bio cell in the Cast table, you'd know this, as that passage is not only there, but sourced. Thus, your edits are based on a personal interpretation on your part, one that requires you to deliberately ignore evidence that contradicts it, because you just plain don't want to let go of it.

In any event, if you believed that there was an indication in Episode 3 that living in the house required working in one of the jobs, then you should've cited the episode in question, as I pointed out to you REPEATEDLY above. But you did not. The only information you placed before the Episode 3 citation was an unnecessary breakdown of the number of castmates working at each of the two eateries. The passage that you added, "It is unclear if the mandatory participation applied this season as the season had the unique job interview process...", did not cite Episode 3, but Episode 8, because that episode depicted Nia remaining in the house after losing her job. If you felt Episode 3 supported your assertion, then why didn't you cite it? Simple. Because there is nothing in that episode that says or even implies anything about the jobs being mandatory, and you figured, after the last time I reverted the unsourced personal interpretation of yours that you added to the article, that maybe you'd wait a while and sneak it back in, perhaps in the belief that I wouldn't notice, apparently because you were unaware that the RW articles are on my Watchlist.

And as far as your claim about Episode 8, the fact that Nia remains in the house after losing the jobs is what further illustrates that there isn't any group activity that requires participation to remain in the house. The fact that you personally are too obtuse to comprehend this does not mean that it's "unclear". Just because it's "unclear" to you and because you find the interviews to be "unique", doesn't mean that those ideas will be stated as such in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.

The issue is not that anyone here thinks that this is "Nightscream presents Wikipedia". The issue is your inability/refusal to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, even after they're repeatedly pointed out to you, and with copious links to them, because you apparently think that the rules don't apply to you, which seems far more like an attitude of "Wefjkwsjkls presents Wikipedia", than any such sentiment on my part.

The Butler

Please see Talk:The Butler#Requested move. There is an ongoing discussion about making the move, and so far, there is not a consensus to make the move. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to PBS Kids may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

was developed in [[partnership]] with [[Comcast]] who later bought full control of the network via [[NBCUniversal]).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/comcast-buys-nbc-clouding-online-tvs-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of programs broadcast by FX may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* ''[[FX Movie Download]]'' (formerly known as ''DVD on TV'' (2001–present)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]