Talk:A Cinderella Story (film series)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Media franchises

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Removing sources[edit]

@Amaury: do not remove sources or sourced information. Either fix what you think is a problem and move on instead of engaging in edit war. Spshu (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: , Additional piping itself is not a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. Please indicate where I supposedly violated WP:ACCESSIBILITY. And how does this create any ONUS issue. Spshu (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall:, Amaury has not even laid out their issues, so how do you think that you have corrected those issues. Spshu (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You broke WP:ACCESS with your use of 'rowspan' in the table (which itself was an unnecessary table). You changed links to correct article titles unnecessarily – so basically, it did violate NOTBROKEN. The edits to the lede were actually an improvement, and should be left, so stop reverting that to prove some phantom WP:POINT of yours. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'rowspan' doesn't show up as an issue at WP:ACCESS. The table existed already just with as a bulleted list. If the title remained unpipped the table would have run into the info box. Edit warring is "some" phantom POINT!?!?! Since, you were restore what I added, you joined the edit war. Amaury claims to have the authority to block me and by reference to my content that you added back, you. The point is that Amaury was being disruptive by challenging content for supposed formating/MOS errors. WP:SOURCE is what then? Spshu (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works, and you know it. When a third-party editor restores some of what an original editor added, the third editor is "taking responsibility" for that part of the edit, and if the third editor is not reverted by the second editor who reverted originally, then it can be assumed that those changes have some consensus support... As for WP:ACCESS, I'm not going to sit here and argue this with you – suffice it to say there have been many conversations among multiple editors over the past year that have confirmed that doing 'rowspan' the way you used it does in fact violate WP:ACCESS. If you want to put that portion of the article in table form, simply don't use 'rowspan' and you'll be safe. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is how works. The third editor has to join the discussion. If some else reverts you then BRD still applies, not gets you off the hook. I can revert my edits even if you restore with out edit warring. You will argue WP:ACCESS since that is the procedure. Spshu (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is, a portion of your original edit was correct. So why the Hell would you "revert" the restoration of the correct part of your original edit by another editor?! That's pure WP:DE in service of proving some kind of WP:POINT you are trying to make (which is pretty much one of the definitions of DE)... If Amuary had had a problem with that restoration, he would have reverted me. The fact that he didn't means he didn't object to that part of your edit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have nine blocks for edit warring, and your most recent one is from October 2018. You clearly show no signs of improving your behavior, and it won't be long before you're blocked indefinitely. If you want to avoid that, then I suggest you change your behavior and stop being disruptive. From the very first time someone reverts you, discuss it on the talk page and reach a WP:CONSENSUS rather than mindlessly edit war because you claim you are always correct. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

←It is should not matter that I have 9 block for edit warring. You should not bring it up. Many of them should have been over turned, but that is beyond your ken to understand. You should have received one too, the both of you, the last time we tangled, Amaury, as you met 5 out of six tendencies of disruptive.

You are the ones "mindlessly edit war because you claim you are always correct". Either discuss the issue or remove your objections to them. You have not attempt to reach a consensus here, Amaury. You have and IJBall have just yelled at me. Spshu (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: , you have still not explain why the "Titling issues, WP:NOTBROKEN, and WP:ACCESSIBILITY violations" calls for the removal of WP:SOURCEd information. You have let IJBall get a way with adding back this information that supposedly creates these violation that it had to be removed. You disregard a request for you to leave that information alone and just make said formatting violation corrections.

@IJBall:, BRD still applies to you. "When a third-party editor restores some of what an original editor added, the third editor is "taking responsibility" for that part of the edit, and if the third editor is not reverted by the second editor who reverted originally, then it can be assumed that those changes have some consensus support..." Show me were this "rule" is. Show me were this supposed discussion about rowspan, then why not colspan too? Spshu (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, further discussion here is unlikely to fruitful, so consider this my last response. I have already answered the questions you posed to Amaury, so there is no reason to WP:HOUND him, and I've given you a way forward on restoring the table you added, if you're interested in listening to it... Your interpretation of BRD is flawed, so let's just leave it at that. And, yes – improper use of 'colspan' in table can also lead to WP:ACCESS issues. If you want to learn more on the issue, I suggest you check out WT:ACCESS and its archives. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I had no problem with IJBall's edit. That part was fine, but the bad outweighed the good. If you're just going to keep blaming us rather than take responsibility for your actions, then your days on Wikipedia are limited and it won't be long before you're indefinitely blocked. Add: I will also no longer respond to further nonsense from you, but if your disruption continues, we will take action accordingly. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]