Talk:The Game (2006 TV series)/Archive 1

ripoff of footballers wives
Should it be included that this show is a ripoff of footballers wives--62.150.178.29 15:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit
Is this real? What came of the lawsuit? Or has the trial not happened yet? Maersayer (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a lawsuit filed back in September 2006 because of an author who felt as if the creator stole his/her idea and used it on the series. The defenders were CBS/CW and the author of the book Interceptions wanted to boycott The Game from airing Sunday, October 1, 2006 but it was since dropped. 75.24.216.137 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What's it about?
Shouldn't there be some description of what it's about early on? You have to go half way down the page before there's any discussion of the shows content or premise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"And Now she also Directed and returns but The Game original director"
Can anyone make sense of this line? Come to think about it, I might as well remove it... Retro Agnostic (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Game on DVD
Are there any plans to put the shows last couple of season on DVD. I missed the first season I really enjoy watching. 75.171.167.215 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

AOL As Source For BET renewing The Game
On June 16, 2009 Jawn Murray first reported about the game being shopped to BET, on his website AOL BV Buzz. Jawn Murray is a respected entertainment columnist who works for AOL, TVOne, Tom Joyner Morning Show, etc. http://www.bvbuzz.com/2009/06/16/game-time-could-canceled-sitcom-go-into-overtime-on-bet

2 weeks later Matt Mitovich reported the info: http://www.tvguide.com/News/BET-Saves-Game-1007605.aspx.

Murray too noticed the plagarism of his work: (from http://twitter.com/JawnMurray/status/2444031516) So TV Guide online has an "exclusive" storyup written by Matt Mitovich about "The Game." Funny thing its basically my story from June 16! (from http://t i n y u r l dot com/mzvhus http://twitter.com/JawnMurray/status/2444078379) Anyone know Matt Mitovich's email? Here's his story: http://t i n y u r l dot com/nqeoh6 & here is the one I did on June 16:http://www.bvbuzz.com/2009/06/16/game-time-could-canceled-sitcom-go-into-overtime-on-bet Ive included both links. But to delete Murray's link is wrong. 70.108.104.200 17:51, 12 September 2009

Page Protection Request
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#The_Game_.28U.S._TV_series.29_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29.

Pink had the page protected does not address the issue. AOL reported it first and AOL is reputable. 70.108.70.197 03:27, 15 September 2009


 * No matter how many times you revert, the fact remains that the AOL page is a blog and is therefore not acceptable as a source. It's on AOL, it isn't "AOL reported". Beyond that, it doesn't matter who reported it first. It only matters that relevant content be sourced. The rest is not pertinent information for this article. In any case, unless you are Jawn Murray, or working for him, what does it matter what source is being used? Two different editors have challenged the use of the blog and the simple fact - that negotiations were underway to hopefully pick up the show elsewhere, is what matters. The only big issue is the use of the name "Jawn Murray", and that is irrelevant. Besides all of that, your reverts do much more than just change sources. An even bigger problem is that the page you keep sticking in as a reference does not contain the information you are inserting. That's included much, much later, and the page changes everyday because it's a blog. The source you want to use changes every day when a new blog posting is made. Your changes also contain grammatical omissions:
 * "As The CW moved to make its schedule free of, series creator Brock Akil attempted to convince the network to air the series as an hour-long, single-camera series like the other shows on CW..."
 * Notice anything missing? No? It's been missing since you started making the change. At this point, you're just edit warring to include a dynamic, blog-based source that doesn't meet standards for reliable soucing, it's pointy and not necessary. Give it up, this is not productive for a non-reliable source. Oh - and the plagiarism stuff? Doesn't belong here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh...first of all, if anyone has issues with any of my actions, I've got a talk page. Article talk pages are meant for discussion about the article which is what the anonymous IP editor should have been doing after revert number two last week. Second, anyone with limited knowledge of Wikipedia can look into any editor's actions so it's not like this talk page post is putting me on blast. I did indeed ask for protection of the page and will continue to do so as long as this behavior continues. This is the "my preferred version and I'll edit war until I win" game and I'm done playing.  Pinkadelica ♣  04:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

wildhart : 1)Pls look at the page. It is part of AOL's AfrAm portion of their website. Info there has to be verified. It is run by professional journalists. If anything, let us get a consensus about the reliability or reputability of this website. 1a)& if it doesnt matter who reported it first, why is the source repeatedly deleted? As a compromise I included the AOL & copycat TVG sources. It was pink who kept deleting the AOL source. 2) Yes my edit did do/was more than just the lead. I also made columns of the list of guest stars. 3)Pls look, the link does indeed go to the specific article on The Game: (http://www.bvbuzz.com/2009/06/16/game-time-could-canceled-sitcom-go-into-overtime-on-bet), not the main page of the website. 4)For this the correct thing to do is add 'half-hour comedies', not hit revert. You all just trying to get your edit count up. 5)I am not edit warring. I revert to the better version. 6)Duh! That is why I agreed w pink & again compromised & and deleted the plagarism info from the article, leaving just the AOL link. 7)I wont give up. While this may be sexual pleasure for you, I want this article to be the best it may be. 70.108.61.231 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

pink: 1)So why didnt you use that talk page to discuss the lead? You instead asked 4 the page to be locked. 2) That is why I made the post that I did. Did you post a comment? No, you didnt. You reverted then had the page locked. What I shoulda done? Why didnt you start the discussion then? 3)Guilty conscience huh? I didnt say you were being put on blast. If I was lighting your *ss up, believe me you'd know. 4)I dont know what behaviour you're talking about. 5)Wiki is a COLLABORATIVE encyclopedia. It isnt about you wanting your preferred version, it is about consensus. 70.108.61.231 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One, my screen name is P-i-n-k-a-d-e-l-i-c-a. Not Pink. If you can't be bothered to type out an additional seven letters, don't bother at all. Two, I didn't take to the talk page to "compromise" because I do not compromise when it comes to unreliable sources. Blogs, Twitter and the like will not be used and there's no wiggle room there. Truth be told, you want the content in so the burden of proof lies with you to prove why it should be in. So far, you've not attempted to convince me why we should throw out a perfectly acceptable policy like WP:RS just so Jawn Murray can get his name on a Wikipedia article or whatever the hell your goal here is. Three, if I had a guilty conscience, I think I'm capable enough of hiding the fact online. I was pointing out the fact that if you had issue with my actions, you should have posted on my talk page like you did when you claimed I was being unfair and that Twitter links are strewn throughout Wikipedia. It's quite difficult to "light someone's ass" up (as you so eloquently put it) when there's nothing to light up. Four, the behavior I speak of is your repeated disregard for policy and the preferred version game. I addressed some of that behavior in this post which you never acknowledged. Finally, I'm fully aware what the project is about but thanks for the reminder. Since you're aware of what consensus is, you should be aware that it is currently against you. I appreciate the fact that you were considerate enough to announce that you were going to continue to edit war against consensus though. It makes requesting additional protection that much easier.  Pinkadelica ♣  14:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You crossed a line that is absolutely inappropriate with this: "I wont give up. While this may be sexual pleasure for you, I want this article to be the best it may be." What the hell is wrong with you? Such comments are completely incivil and inappropriate and I would advise you post haste to remove it or I will report it to WP:AN/I. The link you posted above does not go to the article you think it does. At this writing, the posts are all from the last two weeks or so, not June 16, 2009. It's a compilation blog, each new posting pushes the one you want to use back further in the list. It goes to the most recent page of the blog - which is not acceptable per Wikipedia policy. The TV guide source is stable and is considered a reliable source. My edit count is inconsequential and believe me, this page does nothing for it. The point I was making was that you were just reverting to a deficient version, with a non-reliable source and more than once, you claimed that the columns were being removed when that absolutely was not the case. That you used non-standard mark-up doesn't make it okay. There will be no consensus to include a blog as a reference, it's against policy. Your actions are not acceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

1)Hello Pink. No,I cannot be bothered to type out the rest. So if for that reason you are going to leave the project, too da loo. 2)You arent Jim Wales. If you had a problem w the source why didnt you come to the disc page and disc it? It isnt a blog. You keep calling it that but it isnt. It is an entertainment website with articles written by journalists that AOL hired. 2a)No one is talking about twitter so let that go. 3) I have fulfilled the burden. I told you it isnt a blog & you may look yourself and see that it isnt. Is your problem that comments are allowed? Bc the TVG link too allows comments from readers. 4) I dont have to convince you, you dont own the article, this website, this encyclopedia. Jawn Murray isnt even mentioned in the article. Can you not focus? Go drink some giseng & then come back. 5)You do have a guilty conscience. You didnt point out any facts. You just lazily reverted, and ignored the other edits I made. 6)I disagree as I still see smoke coming from you area. 7)You should have posted on the disc page. I never got that message. 8)I dont think you're aware as you say you want your version & will keep readding it. 9)Consensus isnt against me(except in your world). It is you vs me. I do wish others would chime in but they havent. 10)Wrong. I announced no such thing. Reread what you posted as it seems you've forgotten. 11) Keep requesting protection. You'll be like the boy who cried wolf. 70.108.89.47 (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you? That sounds incivil to me. The link you posted above does not go to the article you think it does. At this writing, the posts are all from the last two weeks or so, not June 16, 2009. It's a compilation blog, each new posting pushes the one you want to use back further in the list. It goes to the most recent page of the blog - which is not acceptable per Wikipedia policy....The point I was making was that you were just reverting to a deficient version, with a non-reliable source and more than once, you claimed that the columns were being removed when that absolutely was not the case. That you used non-standard mark-up doesn't make it okay. Really? Sigh. Again LOOK. The link I posted is indeed direct from Revision as of 21:24, 5 September 2009/// direct from Revision as of 18:27, 6 September 2009; direct from Revision as of 23:48, 9 September 2009;/// direct from Revision as of 04:34, 10 September 2009; direct from Revision as of 17:35, 12 September 2009;/// direct from Revision as of 04:48, 14 September 2009. All the links are direct to the article not the entertainment website main page. & per who or what is TVG stable & reliable? Is there a list? I dont feel you're making a point bc I dont feel you looked @ the edits. The columns were removed. Look @ the current version, there are no columns. I dont know what you mean about markup. 70.108.89.47 (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop reposting the same link and actually open the page you're linking to - it does not open up to the page you think it does. I've explained this three times now. Stop looking at the link you're putting in the article here and open the tvbuzz page and look at it. It is not the page with the title "Game Time: Could Canceled Sitcom Go Into Overtime On BET?" How hard can that be? I'll make it easy for you, I've taken a screenshot of the page that I just opened up from the link http://www.bvbuzz.com/2009/06/16/game-time-could-canceled-sitcom-go-into-overtime-on-bet/39%23commentsInline. Click here to see what comes up from that link, then open the link I just posted and show me the story on that page that discusses the television program of this article. It is not the page you think it is.


 * And yes, there are three columns. I have taken a screenshot and uploaded in order to show you that there are three columns. Please look at this image and then kindly let me know when you have so that I can request that it be deleted. See? Three columns.


 * As for your post above to Pinkadelica, let me show you the objectionable comments you have made.
 * 1)Hello Pink. No,I cannot be bothered to type out the rest. So if for that reason you are going to leave the project, too da loo. - Violates WP:CIVIL
 * 2)You arent Jim Wales. If you had a problem w the source why didnt you come to the disc page and disc it? It isnt a blog. You keep calling it that but it isnt. It is an entertainment website with articles written by journalists that AOL hired. Violates WP:CIVIL
 * 2a)No one is talking about twitter so let that go.
 * 3) I have fulfilled the burden. I told you it isnt a blog & you may look yourself and see that it isnt. Is your problem that comments are allowed? Bc the TVG link too allows comments from readers.
 * 4) I dont have to convince you, you dont own the article, this website, this encyclopedia. Jawn Murray isnt even mentioned in the article. Can you not focus? Go drink some giseng & then come back. Violates WP:CIVIL and in your version last posted here, Jawn Murray's name is prominently mentioned in the lead of the article, with no basis or context in the actual article body. Violates WP:LEAD. So I am asking you directly, are you associated in any way with Jawn Murray or the website you insist must be included?
 * 5)You do have a guilty conscience. You didnt point out any facts. You just lazily reverted, and ignored the other edits I made. Violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA
 * 6)I disagree as I still see smoke coming from you area. Violates WP:CIVIL
 * 7)You should have posted on the disc page. I never got that message.
 * 8)I dont think you're aware as you say you want your version & will keep readding it.
 * 9)Consensus isnt against me(except in your world). It is you vs me. I do wish others would chime in but they havent. Violates WP:CIVIL and you are wrong - I also object.
 * 10)Wrong. I announced no such thing. Reread what you posted as it seems you've forgotten.
 * 11) Keep requesting protection. You'll be like the boy who cried wolf. WP:CIVIL 70.108.89.47 (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the tone of your comments break etiquette guidelines and you have yet to remove your snarky, incivil comment to me that says "I wont give up. While this may be sexual pleasure for you, I want this article to be the best it may be." If you do not remove it, I'm going to report you to WP:AN/I. This is the second request. The third request will likely result in your being blocked. This isn't IMDB, you can't just be rude and snarky when someone disagrees with you, lilkunta. Take my advice, remove your snarky, bad faith comments and actually look at what you're advocating. You're making yourself look foolish in pushing a source that is no longer at the link you think it is and you're wasting everyone's time. You're new here, you don't know the policies and guidelines well enough to be arguing them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x2) I'm not going to leave the project over one POV pusher who types in text speak or whatever that mangled English is suppose to be. I've battled much, much worse and I'm still here. However, no one here is obligated to put up with your very lame attempts at humor and insults, so this this "debate" (which is really just you droning on about nothing) is over. Two different editors have told you that your source(s) and version are not acceptable. You've also been told that the content that you're fighting to get in is already in the article and sourced. If your intentions were purely about the good of the project or at the very least, the article, you'd be fine with that. Your continued whining just reaffirms that this is about your ego and getting your preferred version in - policy and correct sentence structure be damned. If you want to continue your complaining about supposed slights against you, I highly suggest you open an RfC or go through dispute resolution. Better yet, go through with your plan to edit war over this. That'll turn out real well.  Pinkadelica ♣  06:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I opened the link and it does open directly to the article. The link you're using has the ending "39%23commentsInline", so that may be why you're seeing the main page. The link I am taking about is this. Clear you cache and cookies and then try. I too have explained 3 times. Initially I did have this and the discrepency with this link was corrected last week. So it is the page I know it is. Jawn Murray was never mentioned in place of where tv guide' had been previously mentioned in the article:

4 Sep: " A BET spokesperson has told TV Guide"

became

5 Sep: "A BET spokesperson has told Jawn Murray of AOL Black Voice Buzz", on 14 Sep as you said.

Notice in the intermittent edits I didn't put Jawn in the body, I simply wanted --and still want--his info as the source in the ref section!

No it doesn't have 3 colums. Look at the current version of the page, there aren't columns. I dont know how you have the screenshots that you do but that isnt the current version of the page that I'm seeing. There is a "software is being updated" gray notice, but I dont think that is stopping the articles from loading, so I dont know why we're seeing different version of the article.

Now go line by line for pink's comments as you did my comments. colums. I answered pink's comments with the same boldness posted to me. I dont know that imdb or lilkunta has to do with this The Game article. I wont take your advice as you havent been objective. If you had looked at the article to see what the edit dispute was about, I might. I dont look foolish because the source is at the link. If your time is being wasted leave, no one is making you edit. I am not arguing any policy or guidelines, when you bring something up I simply ask that if you rebuke one, rebuke the other. 70.108.66.63 (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Refer to me by my entire username, not a shortened version. Do not patronize me by suggesting that my cache needs to be cleaned out to see what you say was the link. It doesn't matter what link you put on this page, the fact remains that the very last edit you made to the article, and every one in the links you posted, uses this url: http://www.bvbuzz.com/2009/06/16/game-time-could-canceled-sitcom-go-into-overtime-on-bet/39#commentsInline - this is your last edit. Not the same page. Do not presume to think I did not open and look at each and every edit you've made to the page. Each one used the same url. And it doesn't matter what arguments you present, your source has been challenged as a blog based source and is therefore not permitted. End of discussion.


 * I don't know what browser you're using, but there are three columns in the Special guest appearances section. Some browsers will not display three columns of references, and that may translate to other sections. I opened the page, took a screenshot and uploaded it. It uses recommended wiki markup. And you have still not removed your "sexual pleasure" statement, and thus I am making the complaint to WP:AN/I about your editing. You had two chances to remove the statement. This discussion is over and if you don't watch your comments, you'll find yourself permanently banned. Oh, and you've yet to answer the question about how you're associated with Jawn Murray and why you are advocating so strongly to include him in this article. Twitter with him all you want, his page is still a blog. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

wild : Im not patronising you. Clearing your cache is a suggesstion, and if you take offenst to that that is your problem. It does matter what link I put on this page as I have stated and am again stating this is the direct and correct link. As stated earlier the link I added before wrong because it had "39%23commentsInline" (and yes you're right even in the about comment the link is wrong). My arguments dont matter per who, you? I didnt know you were the end all say all. AOL BV Buzz once again is not a blog. If AOL BV Buzz as a blog and that is the reason for declaring it not a WP:RS then:

-Ausiello (http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/) too must be not a WP:RS as well as. It is a blog posted on ew.com (formerly tvguide).

-Marc Malkin (http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/marc_malkin/index.html) too must be not a WP:RS as well. It is a blog posted on eonline.com. Marc even has 'blog' in the url, but it is accepted?

I am using IE. I just checked again and I still see the special guest section as single columned section. If you looked as I requested numerous times you would have seen that { { col-begin } }, { { col-3 } }, and { { col-end } } are missing. Perhaps that is why three columsn aren't appearing. My browser does show three columns. Go ahead to ANI if that pleases you. If this discussion is over I will go ahead and correct the article. So long as wikipedia is "the encyclopedia everyone may edit", I and others will be editing. When it becomes "the encyclopedia that wild solely edits", I and others will not edit. Keep up with the threats, but of course afterwards you won't come back and point out the uncivilness of them. 70.108.86.23 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One more time, my username is Wildhartlivie, not "wild". The point of the matter is that you repeatedly added a link to a page that wasn't what you intended. Each time you changed it. You cannot argue Wikipedia into including the blog link. Period. The E! Online and Entertainment Weekly links are to pages on sites that are considered reliable sources and are also published in print. It's not whether or not the word "blog" is used in a url, it is the type of site that is being used. The Ausiello source is valid. There is no source that I find in this article to eonline. No one is arguing this with you for the entertainment value of it, you've been given the Wikipedia view on using blogs as sources. They aren't acceptable. Don't return the unacceptable source. You still haven't answered how you're connected to Jawn Murray, that's completely relevant to your undeterred mission to only use his blog as a source. You should understand that anyone can edit Wikipedia, but only so long as the content is appropriate, they aren't blocked, and don't just use what they want, there are policies and guidelines. I adjusted column markup, if you still can't see three columns, you're out of luck. Perhaps you should upgrade to a better browser, like Firefox. For the record, also, I'm not making threats, I'm completely and totally serious. You were asked three times to remove your inappropriate comment about getting "sexual pleasure" from this and you have refused. This is grounds for blocking you. Last chance to remove the comment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

wild: No the point is that I realised the error and corected it. Again per who is Eonline/ew reputable, but aolbvbuzz not ? AOL BV Buzz is not a blog. It is an acceptable source. Aha ! Finally you admit the columns werent there! As previoulsy you said they were! Seems you didnt look despite saying you did. I am too completely serious. AOL BV Buzz is reliable. It is being added along with the tvg source. 70.108.121.71 (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My username is "Wildhartlivie", it is not wild. You have repeatedly been asked to use my full username and have pointedly refused to do so. That is disrespectful and inciteful. BV Buzz is a blog, it is not acceptable for use. I took a screenshot showing that the columns were there. I adjusted the markup so it would show up on your inferior browser. I couldn't have taken a screenshot of it were they not present. I could certainly request that a parade of editors come in and support that statement, but you're just redirecting the conversation. They were there. You have not answered my direct question regarding being connected to Jawn Murray, and therefore I am going assume that you are either Jawn Murray, someone connected to him professionally, or related personally, which would be a conflict of interest. Since you have also refused to remove your "sexual pleasure" comment, I will file a complaint regarding your editing at WP:AN/I before the night is over. I'm tired of wasting my time with you. Return the blog source and I will request the page be locked from IP editing again. Grow up and stop beating this dead horse. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated a few days ago, I believe this "debate" is over. This is nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking and it's OLD. If the IP wants to debate this further, they can open an RfC or take their numerous complaints elsewhere.  Pinkadelica ♣  02:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

wild: I believe things that you have done are disrespectful and inciteful as well. Again, please link me to where on WPRS it says AOL Black Voices--a website-- is not a RS, yet blogs by Marc Malkin and Ausiello are. "inferior browser", hmm that sounds inflammatory. IE is a great browser thank you. I'd bet majority of editors are using it to edit! You are the one redirecting the conversation. First it was that you dont like the source, not it is that the columns are present, when they were not until I corrected the column markup. I am not able to verify the screencap you took. You didnt post it in comparison to the column edit I made to show that my edit is causing the colums to not appear. 70.108.59.249 (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

pink:I'm not debating. I added the AOL source along with the tv guide source, the original compromise I made with you. 70.108.59.249 (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm done messing with you and preparing an WP:AN/I report now. You didn't get the answer you wanted at the reliable sources noticeboard, you've refused to answer how you are connected to Jawn Murray, and you aren't making changes, you just keep reverting back. It's done now. Your bad faith claims, incivil remarks regarding editors getting "sexual pleasure" in having to deal with you, and your refusal to understand WP:RS policy is over. You've been asked to refer to me by my username, not some shortening of that because you can't be bother to type a name, and for the record, even after the columns were fixed using acceptable wiki markup, you still change it. Give it up. You still don't seem to understand that you are alone on your contention and have overruled. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, we made no compromise. You continuously edit warred until I got the article locked. I rewrote the content regarding BET and found additional sources on my own. I'd like to know what compromise you're talking about because I don't recall anything resembling a compromise. At this point, you're gunning for a source that isn't even needed in the article. Aside from the unneeded/questionable source, your edits add unneeded content back into the article which is why you've been reverted time and again. For example, there's no need to state the series is a half hour in the lede (see WP:MOSTV). If someone really wants to know how long a series is, they can glance at the huge thing on the right hand side of the article called the "Infobox". Also, overlinking is another issue. In one sentence, you simply link BET which goes to a disambiguation page and right after it, you link to the actual station article. Don't even get me started on the stupid three columns that you're bound and determined to change because of...hell, I don't even know why. If you want to keep pushing poor edits and questionable sources into the article, you're going to keep being reverted whether you think you're right or not.  Pinkadelica ♣  02:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

wild : I did indeed make changes not revert. I have made no bad faith claims. I was the one who pointed out the colums were not working correctly and now you are seizing it and acting as if it is what you have corrected. "Give it up" sounds as if you are bullying. Why is your edit more important than mine. You came her because you are are a friend of pink. Wiki is a collaborative effort, remember that. I was not overruled. I wish other editors had come here and said their opinion. Instead it was just you and pink who are friends. 70.108.122.230 (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

pink: First off all we didn't because you refused. That is where I feel you erred. I did not edit war. You called your friend over here, then claimed "forget it I'm done", yet here you are. I too rewrote the content so that neither AOL nor TVGuide was in the article. I'm not gunning for anything bc only when life is threatened do I feel guns need to be used. The source is needed and is not questionable. If you feel it is, why is Marc Malking and Ausiello alright? Wiki is a collaborative effort, do not forget that. You feel my content is uneeded, but you are not the end all say all. e are to post on here(talk page)& agree but you didnt post on here when I asked(see section above). Having 2 links is not overlinking. It seems quite fair to me for both sources to be included, but you adamantly only want matt mitovich as the source. Again again again, please look. It is a this direct link not a disambiguation page. I did not have a link to a disambig page and then a direct link (what you call station article) right after. I think including "half hour" or not, and using "BET or Black Entertainment Television are small details (& FYI BET is not a disambig page). The three columns is not stupid because the three columns were not appearing so I fixed it so it would. And you saying stupid, where is wild to call you incivil? Of course your friend won't . 70.108.122.230 (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't have to confirm that we didn't reach a compromise. I'm aware of my own actions especially when I flat out tell you myself what I did. Thanks for the recap though. Your not-so-subtle hinting at some sort of cabal is also noted, however, completely unfounded. Unless you can point me to a policy that states editors can't ask other trusted editors for an opinion, I'd suggest you take your bad faith elsewhere. As for your gun remark, I'm very impressed that you feel the need to use guns, but "gunning" in this context actually has nothing at all to do with a firearm or gunplay of any kind. When I stated I was "done", I meant done debating about the source because it's a dead issue that you continue to bring up for whatever reason. I asked you why the link should be included despite the fact that it is questionable in nature and you still can't give a reason except that "it should be included". Again, why is a second, questionable source needed to support what is clearly already sourced? What would be the point in that other than including a link simply because you like it? Yeah, I've asked that question about three times and you skip right over it which is why you've tapped the patience well dry. It was considerate of you to tell us that you feel following policy and guidelines are "small details", but again, stating the obvious was unnecessary as your actions speaks for themselves. Finally...the stupid three columns. Note that I didn't call you stupid but the column issue stupid. It would behoove you to read the content carefully before incorrectly linking to a policy (that would be WP:CIVIL) in an attempt to check me. WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to non-people or abstract ideas so yeah, I can call something stupid all day. I might apologize to the column idea but I don't think its skin is really that thin.  Pinkadelica ♣  14:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your post highlights the issues - mostly. You've been asked repeatedly to call myself and Pinkadelica by our full usernames and refusing to do so reveals your intent to annoy and be harassing. You've refused 5 times to answer the question "Are you Jawn Murray, related to Jawn Murray or associated with Jawn Murray in any way?" Huge problem in refusing to do that, it tends to imply that the answer is yes and therefore a COI. You were asked repeatedly to remove your completely inappropriate comment regarding getting "sexual pleasure" out of one of your posts. Got news for ya, one either uses proper wiki markup or expect it to be changed. That's the end of this. I will not point out anyone else's incivility and your accusation of cabalism just makes your case weaker. There's something decidedly fishy about your insistence on using a specific source instead of a reliable one, and most pointedly, you were clearly told at WP:RS/N that Twitter is not an acceptable source for much of anything, Entertainment Weekly and such sources are entirely acceptable. This issue is closed and the page will continue to be protected so long as you are pushing your possible own blog posting. You said it was yours, that's COI. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)