User talk:Bow-bb

iCarly DVD's
There was no reason to separate the DVD Release and the Series Overview sections. They are together for a reason. All other pages use this format and it's not really complicated. - Alec2011 (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Victorious Series Overview
The color you see is probably because your screen is set darker than mine. I see red, not brown, that's probably why it looks brown to you when it's not.

Also, stop adding padding to the series overview, there's no reason to add padding, it looks fine the way it is. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I got it now. Most series overviews are like that. I changed it to a smaller padding as there really isn't a need for padding but now everything fits fine. - Alec2011 (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

iCarly Season 5 Color
Stop changing the Season 5 color. The darker blue is better, it fits with the rest of the other seasons. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean exactly? - Alec2011 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It will, give it time. There's not enough information filled out in the episode page (summaries, writers, directors, episode numbers, etc.). I see gray and white by the way not green & white. - Alec2011 (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Me too, I wrote wrong. Bow-bb (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

TV-Links.eu
I can't really say since I don't use that site. I would say it isn't because there is a "Edit TV Show Information" but I need an account and I don't want to make one. If you can edit the information, it isn't a reliable source. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It gets its info from a lot of sources including automatic web searches for keywords as is described on their site of how it works. No indication that any of it is verified by anyone. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
  Ð ℬig XЯaɣ   08:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Jessie (season 1)


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Jessie (season 1). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - List of Jessie episodes. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of Jessie episodes - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. AussieLegend (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are trying to do a split, read and follow the procedures at WP:SPLIT. Also very important when copying articles is to give a link at both the source and destination articles edit history saying where contents went and where they came from. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Plot descriptions
Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for watching out for that! I really appreciate it. :) Was that one copied from somewhere, too? Oi. TV plot descriptions drive me nuts. :/--Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the plot description added by (Wikipedian 247 again as it duplicates material uploaded to YouTube see) on the same day it was placed here. Can you explain why you think this material is original to the editor here? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't put it back until this is verified. Can you show me when we had it earlier? I ran a text search on the article, and it shows April 22nd as the first appearance. That Youtube says two days ago is not indicative; if you look at the last activity of the account I linked, it says, "Latest Activity Apr 22, 2012". That is the same day that the content was placed in the article.


 * As a matter of policy, you should not restore content to articles that has been removed for copyright concerns unless you can prove that it was not copied. This contributor has a history of copying plot summaries and may not yet understand that he can't do this. There is a possibility that he had it first, but since none of the other episode summaries placed by that Youtube account seem to have been copied from us, this seems less likely. We can't be sure. :/ When we have doubt, we have to use new text. We really need strong evidence that we had it first. I'd welcome that, but until we have it, we have to remove the content.


 * In terms of semi-protection, I realize that it is very frustrating to deal with rapidly unfolding articles like this one, but it looks like IPs are still doing constructive edits, such as . Let me know if unconstructive edits escalate, but if we can avoid it, it's better not to lock the article. It can be a good way to draw in new editors, which we need. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. When you recently edited ICarly (season 6), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeff Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ratings?
Is there a reason for this edit? What were you fixing? The ratings were right. Why would you use less information, wouldn't you want more information? - Alec (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding unreliable sources to List of iCarly episodes
Please stop doing this.

It's obvious that adding instagram photos of something that anyone could make up is not considered to be a reliable source. What's the rush? Just wait for a better source to come out (which it will in due course, no doubt), then add it. Continuing to replace a reliable source with an unreliable one is disruptive and continuing to do so will result in limitations to your ability to edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Your recent editing history at List of iCarly episodes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AussieLegend (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The link you keep posting at List of iCarly episodes fails the requirements of a reliable source in in some serious ways. It's anonymous - there is no evidence that "boogiewonderland" is who you claim him to be. Therefore the author lacks credibility. Instagram encourages users to manipulate images that they upload. Anyone can photocopy a logo and add a fake episode number and title. There is no evidence that the image is legitimate and, as the author's identity is completely anonymous the image can not be used as a reference. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't delete sourced information
Find a source that says what you say, and don't delete sourced information. Ratemonth (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)