User talk:Amaury/2019/July

2018 Archive Index: January • February •  March •  April •  May •  June •  July •  August •  September •  October •  November •  December

Wynonna Earp
Two years between broadcast of seasons has got to be some kind of record! – Though I guess Fargo may well eventually beat even this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

IP 96.58.4.160
This IP looks to be one of the main culprits in adding unsourced "end dates" to various TV series. Bears keeping an eye on... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Scarlett Estevez
I successfully got the redirect deleted, and the "article" was restored, but to Draftspace, at: Draft:Scarlett Estevez. It's a work in progress, if you're interested – it needs more secondary sourcing (should be easy for Lucifer, Bunk'd and the Daddy's Home films), but I'm betting there are no in depth profiles out there on Estevez, so I'm guessing the draft will not pass WP:BASIC currently (as she does arguably technically meet WP:NACTOR now, esp. counting Bunk'd...). P.S. I need to post to the Bunk'd talk page about something – I'll ping you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Peyton List (actress, born 1998)
I suddenly see myself having made three reverts at that article in the last hour or two (the first two of them are vandalism but the third isn't). But no doubt the article needs more watching ... and even though it appears the uptick has nothing to do with Cameron Boyce's death (List being one of his co-stars on Jessie), this may need to be monitored more. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede of this article also needs work – it's redundant in parts, and needs to be reworked... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

So, since last week I've been trying to update IMDb for Peyton List to include her appearance in the episode "Last First Kiss" of the web series Love Daily. When they requested "verification", I even cited this, which specifically even says: "In "The Last First Kiss," starring Peyton List (Light as a Feather), Peyton's character and her high school sweetheart share one last kiss before breaking up, which unexpectedly transports them back in time to their very first kiss." And IMDb still won't accept it!! This is now the second time IMDb has declined a correction/submission of mine, even despite me citing proof!... AFAICT, IMDb is effectively not taking user submissions anymore. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. IMDB is not RS. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That completely misses the point of the story. But, OK... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Saw this conversation here, sorry for butting in- I've actually had (and still do) have trouble with updating shows/episodes on IMDb. This site is actually very helpful, explain the situation and list it as a problem, official IMDb reps get back in a few days and will be fixed. One example was the descriptions of Game Shakers episodes, for some reason, even with giving links as proof to the correct descriptions (or as they're known, "plot outlines"), still getting declined. Literally described the problem in a thread, added my links of proof used, added my support ticket IDs, and got it fixed up right away. Magitroopa (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to "jump through hoops" just to add data to IMDb. I've included a published source which verifies what I tried to add. If that is not good enough for IMDb, f*** 'em. I'm doing them a service, and I've been sending them stuff for years. If none of this is good enough, again, f*** 'em. Just my $0.02 on the matter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Life update
Just a heads up that I won't be crazy available during the summer as I have a job at Arby's now that I started Wednesday. That's why I haven't been that active. Amaury • 22:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the job!... One of my two summer jobs finishes up this week, so I may actually be around more after this week... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Descendants 3
Sorry about that. MrWii000 (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A quick note, please don't call other editors "dumbass". Let's keep it civil. Thanks! Railfan23 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The Swap (2016 film)
I'm going to let you appraise this one – it's not horrible, but it's not a fully fleshed out 'Plot' section either... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Always room for improvements, but seems fine to me for now. Amaury • 03:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Archive links
I mean, I get that the archive link can be created in advance. (Wayback created it without my input after all.) I guess I'm confused as to why it's wrong to add it to the reference beforehand when that's the entire reason the dead-url=no parameter exists ("unfit/usurped" is supposed to hide the original url in favor of the archive and "yes" is equivalent to not including that parameter at all). I was wondering if there was a guideline or consensus that suggested that wasn't good practice, since I can't find anything in the CS1 talk page archives regarding not using it for that purpose and the template documentation states that pre-emptively archiving is a thing people do. It's been my practice for a long time to do what I did at Cameron Boyce and I don't remember anyone finding it not-yet-ish before, so I guess I'm wondering either if something changed or if there's an article-specific consensus or something or if it was always "wrong" and no one ever told me (or suggested not to do it in places like the template parameter documentation). (I'm not going to re-add it or anything, I'm just still confused.) - Purplewowies (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, I've just seen another such conversation that appears to show consensus for including the archival link prior to the url going dead. See here and here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no point in adding that until there is ever such a case for it to be needed. By all means, create an archive just in case, and that's even highly encouraged to be done before it's too late, but there's no need to actually add it until or if a website is dead. And I doubt that big websites such as USA Today, The Huffington Post, etc. will be dead any time soon. Similarly, a website could still be alive, but make huge renovations that make previous working URLs no longer work, such as TV by the Numbers. The same logic applies, though. Create an archive link on the archive website and then add it when or if the time ever comes for an archive link to be needed. Amaury • 23:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, the policies/guidelines should be neutral on the issue – neither requiring reference archive links ahead of time, nor prohibiting their addition. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's my view, too, I guess, and where I thought any related policy that exists might lie. I really like putting it there because if the link ever goes dead (particularly if the link hasn't been identified as such yet, which is really common to my experience, even with bots trawling testing for deadlinks), the archive is already there to take advantage of, which is nicely proactive against WP:LINKROT, but it isn't sensible or feasible to require it for several reasons. It's one of those things that's just sort of a good idea as opposed to a must, necessarily. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I just think it's good to provide beforehand because then if linkrot happens and a user or bot hasn't noticed it's happened, the archive is already available in-citation for any reader who tries to use the source. I suppose my routine for doing it is a bit rigid, in that I sort of blanket do it and don't really leave it out based on whether it's likely to stay stable (like USA Today probably is) or not, I'm just personally of the mind that having it there from the outset means that it's useful for readers if there's ever a gap between a link going dead and someone realizing it's dead as well as for editors who don't have to wade through the archive themselves later when repairing a dead ref, just remove the parameter that lists the url as live. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Amaury/sandbox/Template:Nickelodeon original series
Re: My recent reversion in your sandbox, this recent followup at WP:TfD is directly relevant to the topic in question... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Along the same lines, I'm looking at List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon right now, and I'm wondering how many of these should actually be listed there. For example, has that Star Trek cartoon even gone into production yet? How many of the series listed there actually have a source showing they're in production/filming yet?!... Any that don't should actually be removed from the list, as per the WP:CRYSTAL/pre-production/WP:NFF-WP:TVSHOW rule. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nothing should be listed in future programming until an exact premiere date is known. Not even August 2019 would be sufficient as things can change. We saw what happened with Disney Channel's Right Hand Guy that never went into production. Amaury • 20:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, we shouldn't be listing rerun dates like at List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel. That's not only WP:TRIVIA, but also goes against WP:NOTAGUIDE. For most networks, rerunning ended series is not uncommon. Amaury • 21:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Based on what said on his Talk page, I'd move your sandbox to Template:Nickelodeon original series immediately! As was said at the TfD discussion, don't forget to Template:Split article-type tags if you do this.

In terms of the "former template", we can maybe do that, or we can leave it to others. Then eventually somebody with WP:AWB with have to substitute the old template with the split templates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not letting me. Amaury • 20:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now, how's the split being done? Are we just doing current/upcoming and former for now? In which case, I should re-add the Nicktoons to that template? Or are we splitting based on live-action and Nicktoons and then sub-splitting those into current/upcoming and former? Amaury • 21:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, it was a pain, but I was able to move to Template-space with a "round robin" move – it probably required 'Template editor' status to do it directly... Now I have added an 'Oldrfdmulti' tag to the "new", "split" template, but I have not done the Template:Split article tags yet, so you may want to do that.
 * In terms of the rest of the split, I think whoever wants to/gets to it first can do the "former programming" template, and the "Nicktoons" template (if applicable)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So just to confirm and make sure I understand that correctly, there will be four templates in total for the time being?


 * Current/Upcoming live-action (Template:Nickelodeon original series)
 * Former live-action (Template:Former Nickelodeon original series)
 * Current/Upcoming Nicktoons (Template:Nicktoons)
 * Former Nicktoons (Template:Former Nicktoons)


 * Amaury • 21:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that was the result, though I am skeptical that two Nicktoons templates will be needed. In fact, I'm skeptical that even one will be needed! – I'm not sure how many "Nicktoon (channel) original series" there have been, but it can't have been many... P.S. You may want to edit the new "current" template to get rid of the one or two "upcoming" shows that don't have firm premiere dates yet... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'd leave "upcoming" series in the template if they have a general announced premiere date (e.g. "Fall 2019"). But I'd leave them out if there's no announced premiere date at all... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually intentionally left out The Casagrandes since it's not live-action? I'm still confused on the whole thing, though. Amaury • 21:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We should be dividing by network not by "format". IOW, "Nicktoons" shows mean original series on the Nicktoons network. But any "animated series" that are Nickelodeon channel originals should still be included... That's why I'm saying that I'm not sure a "Nicktoons" template is warranted – I'm not sure there have been any "Nicktoon (channel) original series". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I need to re-add a lot of things. Amaury • 21:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The former is done: Template:Former Nickelodeon original series. I meant to start it in my sandbox first, but I guess that's okay. Your finishing touches, please. Amaury • 22:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one thing I was trying to say in the TfD discussion, but wasn't very clear about, is that "Nicktoons" should never have been part of the template's name in the first place!! (It wouldn't surprise me if a clueless IP moved the template to that name years ago...) "Nicktoons" was first a "brand name", and then later it was a separate channel. But that's neither here nor there: the template is supposed to be about "Nickelodeon (channel) original series" – it doesn't matter if they're "live-action" or "animated": the template is just supposed to focus on the "(channel) original series" part... So "Nicktoons" should never have been added to the template's name in the first place, as it just confuses what the template's purpose is supposed to be. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On the "former" template, I think I pretty much agree with Gonnym – it's still too big to be useful, and splitting again by decade seems pointless. I think I'm coming to agree that we shouldn't do "former (channel) programming" templates anymore, and should just do "current & upcoming" show templates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be a different battle altogether since the consensus for now is just current/upcoming and former. Although I will hold off on updating the template for now on ended Nickelodeon series. We should probably do the same thing for Disney Channel and Disney XD. Obviously, we're not going to do all the networks, as that would be too time consuming. We can just do the ones of networks we watch and let others worry about other templates. Also, the other option would be to split by century, I think is the correct term? So one template for everything former in the 1900s and one template for everything former in the 2000s. Amaury • 22:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

So, this is the list of "Nicktoons original programs": List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons – were any of these included in the original template?... If not, I don't see any reason to create a Nicktoons original series template based on that list (basically, as per WP:TG #6). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants: "SpongeBob's Big Birthday Blowout"
Hey, just wanted to check and make sure I was doing viewership for SpongeBob right. "SpongeBob's Big Birthday Blowout" had its ratings released from Friday night, but it was a simulcast premiere on Nickelodeon and Nicktoons. I'm pretty sure the ratings column for Nickelodeon shows are just for the main channel (Unless Nicktoons/Teennick is the main channel for premieres of a certain show), but the only recent example I could think of was "Double Dare at Super Bowl" which (in your sandbox) lists only the main channel ratings, not Nicktoons or Teennick. So basically, just use the main channel's ratings, or add on the Nicktoon's ratings to the main channel? I also made sure to check MOS:TVRECEPTION before asking this, but didn't see anything regarding simulcast premieres. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We only include the original channel's ratings. Amaury • 21:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"Incivility by User:Amaury" at WP:AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Railfan23 (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You might want to take this seriously, Amaury. At least one user is suggesting that admin put you on a topic ban from articles and the like pertaining to children's entertainment. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Amaury. I just read through the ANI discussion linked above and I am disheartened by some of your commentary that was linked there. I need to remind you that WP:CIVIL is not a suggestion. There is no way to interpret some of the linked remarks other than as uncivil and bitey. Please tone it down. I realize we all get tired and sometimes are not at our best when dealing with others, but this does not appear to be a few rare examples. Your immediate attention to this matter and corresponding modification in the manner you interact with other editors is deeply appreciated. I dislike the dreaded "or else," but if this subject has to be addressed again it might not stop with a warning, which this should be understood to be. Thank you for all of your work on the project, which despite this note, is deeply appreciated. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you could acknowledge my above note and indicate that you understand the problem and will adjust your commentary accordingly, I will go ahead and close the ANI discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been keeping an eye on it. I'm taking it seriously, but I'm not going to bother responding to it, unless an admin asks me to, of course, because it is being blown out of proportion. Apparently one edit is immediate cause for investigation over anything in general lately. Since they're talking about swearing, the Blood & Treasure and Cousins for Life diffs are irrelevant as neither of them even contains any swears, and Blood & Treasure is completely irrelevant in general. And out of the ones with swears, only two of those are me directly swearing at somebody. Everything else was just general swearing. One of the ones for Descendants 3 just contains damn, which isn't even technically a swear by itself, but it evidently must be still be a cause for concern. They clearly haven't done a thorough investigation; otherwise, they would have seen why we've gotten to that point, in that IPs in particular don't know how anything works and will continually add an end date for Fast Layne for example. Instead, they make an incorrect assumption that frustrated edit summaries are my default nature. When you look at my editing as a whole within the last few years, those frustrated edit summaries probably equate to less than 1% of my summaries. Heaven forbid we humans get frustrated on occasion and swear, because swearing is totally the worst thing in the world. But I'll dial it down just to get these people overreacting off my back. Special thanks to Bonadea for actually seeing that and being level-headed about it. And I'm of course not frustrated with you by any means, and I definitely appreciate your concern. Amaury • 20:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we all do have moments when we get snippy. It happens and that is one of the reasons why I think a formal note of caution is enough. But a lot of those edit summaries were in a fairly compressed time frame. In any event, if you will acknowledge the community's concerns and indicate that will try to dull the edge in some of your edit summaries, I think we can move on from this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm more than willing to dial it down. Although, to be honest, they really should have looked at my editing history overall and seen that stuff like that is an extremely small percentage of my editing style before, in my opinion, prematurely creating an ANI section when it could have easily been discussed with me. (And I do understand I blew it off, but they still could have gone to an administrator such as yourself and ask for comment rather than dragging me to ANI for a relatively minor incident.) Despite what was incorrectly stated there, my frustration showing is a rare last resort rather than my go to resort from the get-go. When you have, as an example, 50 IPs adding the same content over and over and it's been reverted over and over, with at least 40 of those reverts explaining why, and it just keeps happening, you can understand the problem. At Fast Layne, for example, Disney Channel has yet to announce a second season, and because it was labeled as a limited/miniature series, IPs instantly think it must be over because Disney Channel hasn't announced anything. That's not how it works for TV series articles. Things stay showing as still airing (present) until either an official announcement is posted or one year has passed with no new episodes since the last episode. Amaury • 21:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of your editing record which is remarkable. And I am also, unhappily, familiar with the occasional frustrations of dealing with IPs and editors who either through good faith (and ignorance) or malice can be unhelpful. It's part of my job description. All of which said your acknowledgment of the above is appreciated. Please don't take any of this personally. No one is trying to flame you. But people had some concerns and you have addressed them. I am going to go ahead and close the ANI discussion. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thank you. Amaury • 21:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Remember that you can always raise issues at noticeboards to get admin attention if something gets frustrating or annoying. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Street (TV series)
Not sure if you've heard about everything going on involving this, but Nickelodeon has apparently taken all of the season 3 premieres off for next week. Now, the official/verified Hunter Street Instagram bio has updated, saying that it is now premiering July 29 on TEENick. Not sure if this is WP:RS, but it is a verified account saying it. Zap2it has not yet updated with the TEENick listings, but did remove the Nickelodeon airings for next week, and Futon has yet to update. Thought I'd give you the heads up on this. Magitroopa (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have to go by what our sources state, but if a date passes, and an episode doesn't air, we can remove the air date, but we can only go episode-by-episode until the scheduling guides updates. I see Amazon says unavailable for volume 5 here, even though it otherwise would have been available at 12:00 AM today. Are you able to confirm if "The Gift" aired at 7:30 PM yesterday or not? I had to work and forgot to set a recording. Amaury • 15:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was also at work last night at that time, and so can't confirm that. What I can confirm is that no "Hunter Street" is listed on either Nick or TeenNick tonight. In other news, TeenNick massively revised their scheduling lineup last week, so I can certainly believe that season #3 of Hunter Street will show up airing on TeenNick as of next week. Also, on Sunday, TeenNick marathoned the first season of Hunter Street rather than the second season, as originally scheduled. That would make sense if TeenNick intends to marathon season #2 of the show this coming Sunday, before premiering season #3 next Monday... Finally, I notice that episode #3.1 of Hunter Street is currently available on my Spectrum OnDemand – I'll try to watch this by about Friday, to confirm things like cast info for season #3. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been watching Are You Smarter premieres, and it was originally supposed to premiere right after. TitanTV currently shows last night's 7:30pm slot as SpongeBob's "Company Picnic/Pull Up a Barrel" - wasn't really watching it, but I do remember seeing the titlecard that said "Company Picnic". The Instagram still says TeenNick, Monday at 7:30, but I'll certainly keep a look out on the main channel in regards to the episode-by-episode method. Also, if either of you have the Nickelodeon app on your phone, the first full episode, "The Birthday Gift", is still available to watch currently. Magitroopa (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also don't watch Hunter Street really, but thought I could help - checked the credits of the episode, opening of the show starts up with starring Daan Creyghton, Kyra Smith, and Kate Bensdorp, with these names as "co-starring" in the end credits, if you want to get that done now. Magitroopa (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: So, interesting story: I just tried the Nick app, and I got an "Episode not available" error when I tried to load up the season #3 premiere, "The Birthday Gift". But it is still available on Spectrum's OnDemand service. Ep. #3.1 is one of those "cold open" episodes (i.e. no "opening credits with theme song"). I can confirm that Ep. #3.1 only front-credits Creyghton, Smith, and Bensdorp (I was surprised that Radjou-Pujalte wasn't also front-credited as well, as he is featured prominently in the season #3 promos...). I am disappointed (though not surprised) that Stony Blyden, Mae Mae Renfrow, and Thomas Jansen are no longer credited... However, I'm not comfortable trying to figure out the season #3 crediting situation until we see other episodes (e.g. some of the others not credited in #3.1 may be "front-credited" in later S3 episodes...). Also, I have now seen a TV promo that implied season #3 will run at "7:30pm" on Nick and TeenNick (and other channels as well), though it's unclear to me if that's just the season premiere, or all of the S3 episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Starting Monday? Amaury • 04:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm pretty sure that's what the promo I saw said. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Zap2it has updated, but because of the current issues that have yet to be fixed with the dates being a day behind, we can't use it. Now, if you look under Upcoming Airings, that seems to further confirm it'll still be airing on Nickelodeon. Amaury • 22:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just checked my cable TV schedule guide – it only has TeenNick airing episode #3.1 on Monday at 7:30pm. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

So, this is the closest thing I can find to a "reliable source" confirming the TeenNick broadcast of season #3. I'd take Tiger Beat over JustJared. (And I don't know what this is, so I wouldn't use it...) Still nothing at Futon: I was hoping there would be a Nick press release about this by now, but if there is I haven't found it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't work today, so I can check what's on at 7:30 on the main channel. Currently, the schedule shows a repeat of "SpongeBob's Big Birthday Blowout." However, what I said above is still accurate, and more dates through the 13th have been added as we keep moving forward, which leads me to believe it will on be on the main channel. It wouldn't make sense to start out on TeenNick for the first five episodes and then go to Nickelodeon. In fact, the other way around would make much more sense, in a similar vein to Mech-X4. Amaury • 15:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My guide still has it on TeenNick tonight, and not on Nick. My guess is that guides that still show future episodes on Nick itself haven't been updated yet. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Zendaya
WP:STATUSQUO was the version mentioning Marvel Cinematic Universe before it was reverted. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn't even in the text at Zendaya before July 14, so, no. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

List of All That cast members
I could use another set of eyes here. We have an editor at this article whose edits appear to consist mostly of breaking a "timeline" figure, and adding a second cast table to the article that is completely redundant to the one current there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Nickelodeon original series
Please explain your reverson of my edits here and here as you seem to be reverting without using an edit summary. Portals should only be included in navboxes if they match the topic exactly. General portals like "Television" do not belong. I would be grateful if you would self-revert these edits. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_14 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Portals should only be included in navboxes if they match the topic exactly. According to whom? You? That's not how Wikipedia works. Start a discussion on the talk page of the templates, per WP:BRD, or face disciplinary actions. Amaury • 15:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at the earlier discussion. It's already been had. Read it. It's standard practice to only include if they match the topic, otherwise the portals end up on inappropriate pages. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

User CriticismEdits
Related discussion: CriticismEdits from February 2019

This is CriticismEdits, the real one. I got locked out of my account by someone, don’t know who it is. So if you find edits made by me on your followed by you, it is made by CriticismEdits, just a different username. Diva206 (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)