Talk:Nikita (TV series)

NikitaWiki
Could someone please help me correctly put in the external link for http://nikita2010.wikia.com/wiki/Nikita_Wiki
 * I keep getting '%7C' added when my link-code goes to the site. (Find it at "External Links" in WP article.)
 * It is a good site and I'd like it included. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've made the edit, but I think this is an inappropriate EL under WP:ELNO #11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." TJRC (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was misusing the vertical-bar '|'. I think it of value to WP readers. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We should talk. I may have misnamed the site (my word-choice about 'fans') —the site seems very reliable. Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, the new link is more useful than the external link just above it, "Nikita Episode Guide". — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Pictures vs white space
Currently, as of this date, this Article has mostly white space at the top of the article, in the middle. Could this open space be filled with a picture or two? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple pictures! Decodet (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Nikita (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/wiser/2683844,CST-FTR-paige08.article
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.star.gr/tv/en/Pages/Series.aspx?artId=42&artTitle=nikita
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ant1iwo.com/webtv/show-page/?show=37581

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Letting readers know where the show is currently accessible free is guilty of promotion?
I added "the show is made entirely available on the free CW Seed starting December 2020. in the "release" section. Editor Sleptlapps persecuted me with a usual bad faith. How is that acceptable here? Thanks.
 * Context and ping: User:Sleptlapps removed the edit here. Given the language used (referring to it as "entirely free" for example) and the sourcing (it's a reprinting of a press release), it reads like an attempt to sell the show/service. Also I'd advise watching the hostile wording. Accusing others of persecuting and assuming bad faith is a violation of WP:CIVIL CiphriusKane (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "Entirely free" means the entire show is free, not partial. If I was directing people to buy the release, hurting their wallet at a time of pandemic, then it's true promotion for sure. I guess I am always the one to blame, since I didn't see "press release" at the top. The jokes were on me. I was trying to be factually correct from the title of the article, which was Sep 2020 vs Dec 2020. I didn't know The Futon Critic would put press release on their site, but obviously I guess he presumed i was guilty before innocent. Please stop this nonsense. If he is civil, he could have been less condescending. It's so frustrating here. Supermann (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologise for misquoting, the actual quote should be "entirely available on the free [channel]", which still reads as advertising a service. Promoting something does not necessarily mean getting people to pay for something, but can also mean getting people to use a service, such as to increase ratings.  To clarify, I am not saying that was what you were doing, I am merely explaining a fallacy in your argument.  Furthermore, Sleptlapps left a templated warning on your talk page, and was not accusing you of malice.  If you'd rather people avoid leaving templated messages such as that, you can easily leave a message at the top of your talk page requesting people not leave templated warnings CiphriusKane (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't even know what "leaving a templated warning" means. All I can see is just endless presumption of bad faith. Instead of devoting energy to inform readers of knowledge, we are wasting time on argument, fallacy. I am not interested. I just want to empower our readers with free info they could use. Have a good rest of the weekend. Supermann (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It means they posted Template:uw-advert2 to your talk page. Templated messages are tools to quickly notify others of issues, which can seem impersonal and condescending, but bad faith? Hardly in this case. It's a fair use, as the edit was promotional (I'm the third editor to say as such). I think it'd be an idea for you to strike the accusation of bad faith, as quite a bit of what you've written here is bad faith ("I guess he presumed i was guilty before innocent" for example) CiphriusKane (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Being the third really doesn't mean much. There could be 500 million on my side if Wikipedia isn't blocked in China. wikipedia.org is 100% blocked in China | GreatFire Analyzer We agree to disagree. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Supermann please don't threaten other users with canvassing. Sleptlapps (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please restrain yourself from labeling other people with the word "threaten." I feel threatened by you. If you look at the opening sentence of "Canvasssing," "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." That's all I was suggesting. We need participation. We need turnout to really show whatever we are writing are informing the millions of people who are reading but not writing. Speaking of participation for this 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Election, voter turnout is really low per https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021#Outreach. Please don't pretend there isn't a likelihood of those 500 million Chinese disagreeing with me after all. Supermann (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit is even more promotional than this edit (which may have passed with a discussion on the wording). It feels like you've completely ignored concerns about the wording and implications of selling services. I am asking that you discuss this before readding blatantly promotional content that others have found problematic (ideally without mentioning China's population). Pinging as somebody who's commented on this before CiphriusKane (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. How is this PROMOTIONAL per Spam when the disadvantage of CW Seed have been exposed and there are no sales aspect? CW Seed is part of CW, where the show was originally released. It's not about telling people the show is otherwise non-free on Apple TV+ where you can buy it at $29.99 per season. Your reasoning beats me. If we are talking about apples vs apples, then Zack Snyder's Justice League shouldn't mention anything about HBO Max which is not a free service. I finished catching up the show on CW Seed without any piracy and paying a single dime for any product advertised during the commercial breaks. I am proud of myself and lament the fact that only people residing in United States can watch it for free. Thanks and let common sense reign! Supermann (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is still promoting the service. Like I said, the second edit could have been acceptable with modifications to the wording to remove advertorial wording such as "free". Doubling down on the advertorial wording by mentioning ads under the guise of "balance" fails to address the issue CiphriusKane (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am ALL for your suggestion. I would have been more thankful and moved on, had you just improved it. The only reason for adding "free" is because Wikipedia says it's a FREE wikipedia. Can you please just edit it properly instead of being a deletionist? Please show me more collaboration and be less condescending and I will absolutely APOLOGIZE FOR REAL instead of having any mental reservation when I say it. Camaraderie is very hard to earn here when all I want is to inform the readers. If you have the ability and tool to look for evidence, please ask the original editor on the CW page why they added The Futon Critic link in the first place. They should not have used that press release as a source based on all the things you guys are citing. They certainly misled me in using it. Thanks. Oh. I think I found who did it. The CW: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Can we have some insight from ? Thanks. Or am I canvassing again? Supermann (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Be bold, revert, discuss. If an edit is reverted, the correct procedure is to take it to the talk page to discuss the change and issues with it. That is what I asked of you. And Wikipedia describes itself as a free encyclopaedia because it is a free encyclopaedia, without any ads or subscription charges. There is a difference between describing a paper as a free paper and describing where to find a paper for free CiphriusKane (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BRD, "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient." I would have appreciated more if you just edited and left a note on my talk page, then we would haven't had to spend time on all these discussions. That's what I asked of you. Let's be more collaborative instead of turning it into a battleground. ANI is certainly not helping. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I felt unsure whether the passage was required at all, given how it had already been removed once and I had personal reservations about it. I have followed procedure as I saw fit. As this is now devolving into commentary that is irrelevant to the article, I am recusing myself further from the discussion, but I will note that this is an acknowledgement of the ANI report CiphriusKane (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am responding to the ping. I don't know the back-and-forth history of this discussion, but what I did in this edit involved rephrasing text and adding RS to verify the text. The "free" in the edit is only about the app being downloadable on media devices without cost, and the sources support this specific material.   Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 04:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you look into the back and forth, they say you can't mention "free." "Without cost" would therefore also be a taboo. They also say press release can't be reliable source. Am I misinterpreting something? Supermann (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You can say "free" if sources say that something is free, but it's important to include context for the "free". Re press releases: WP:PRSOURCE.  I would not use a press release as the only source. But in cases when the only information available is found in a press release, I would qualify the article's text with "according to a press release by ____".   Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 04:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * May I then have your insight on Nikita (TV series): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia and Nikita (TV series): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia and finally Nikita (TV series): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia? Or am I canvassing? You don't need to see the back and forth. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Re "...made entirely available on the free CW Seed...." and  "...now available for free on CW Seed....":  I don't have a problem understanding what is meant (i.e. that the CW Seed is a free app), but all Wikipedia readers do not have the same English language comprehension skills. "It is streaming on CW Seed to audience in the United States": if someone misunderstands what this means, then they have reading comprehension difficulties.   Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 06:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Their concern is more about me promoting a service that I am paid or have conflict of interest, blah blah blah. Spam. Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, I kinda understand where you are coming from when you used a new reasoning as we are not a guide to remove the streaming info, despite I dissent. But can you please explain why The Flash (2014 TV series) is allowed to mention streaming? We are not talking about a random streaming platform, but the streaming platform where the show originally aired. Isn't this comparable to Zack Snyder's Justice League mentioning the streaming platform HBO Max? Just want to sure we are applying policies consistently and fairly. Thanks.