User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 12

Troubled user
Hello. IP 118.38.47.139 is still editing logged out as Soo9819. They keep making edits like this one and this one, and then they'll redirect the page again. It's getting quite tiresome reverting this disruptive editing. They have also made edits like this one on a couple of articles. I'm not sure what you can do, if anything, but something needs to happen. 🎄 Corkythe hornetfan  🎄 02:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed the Soo account, and blocked the IP for a week. If you spot any flareups whether from the IP or another logged-in account, please let me know, or report to WP:AIV. They're clearly disruptive. Thanks, and a happy upcoming new year!Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks! You have a happy new year as well! 🎄 Corkythe hornetfan  🎄 03:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cyphoidbomb, the IP is back at it again. has been reverting their disruptive, unexplained removal edits. ❄ Corkythe  hornetfan  ❄ 02:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * or, can either of you please be more specific about the vandalism that's being caused now? While the user had been disruptive prior, this doesn't look like vandalism to me (they are for once using years for something other than times, and here they fleshed out the year range with an endash, and got rid of Don Lemon from a wikilink, which seems like it shouldn't necessarily be a problem. Same thing here. This looks like conformity as well. Can you point to more glaring violations, please? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cyphoidbomb - No block is needed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, a block isn't needed right now. I was just sort of warning you to keep an eye, because I can see it coming soon. Also, what about this edit. I'm not sure why it needs to be moved from this page? ❄ Corkythe hornetfan  ❄ 03:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just noting that there is a new user (created account 29 Dec. 2015) Kim9819 who is doing the almost (if not) the same things that the IP and Soo9819 were doing. I don't know if anything is violated, but something to watch. ❄ Corkythe hornetfan  ❄ 01:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Turner Asia Pacific
Hi Cyphoidbomb,

Thanks for taking the time to go through my edits on the Turner Asia Pacific page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_System_Asia_Pacific. I see you marked the company description as a copyright violation, however this is the official company boilerplate intended for public use. I also cited the source from the official Time Warner press site. Not being overly familiar with the Wiki processes, is the a way around this?

Separately, some of the changes I suggested are not copyright violations at all but updates to factual inaccuracies. For example, the office location is Hong Kong not Singapore; the Phoenix channels are not operated by Turner and so on.

Many thanks for your time, HKJamesM (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Tony Goldmark
Hihi! Just wanted to point out that Owlfarm88 was, in fact, talking to the real Tony Goldmark. I've been speaking to him on twitter about the whole fiasco, and I also directed him to post it on Owlfarm's talk page after he mistakenly posted it to mine, as Mr. Goldmark was generally unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Glad that I can finally go on and edit other pages without worrying about that troll! - TMobias (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For all I know, they're the same person. I've seen disruptive users create fake discussions between their sockpuppets. It wouldn't be anything new. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Joarsolo
Tiene mucho que ver con el artículo, serás tu el poco profundo?--Joarsolo (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

A slight snafu
Hello C. I see that you protected the State of the Union (TV series) article and its talk page. As I read the logs it looks like you move protected them twice. You also added a regular PP template which caused them to show up in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I have removed the templates to get them out of that category. I wanted to let you know about this in case you meant to move protect AND vandalism protect both pages. If that is the case please restore the templates after you apply the proper protections. It took me a few moments to try and figure out what was going on and if my guess is wrong my apologies. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the work I caused you! I was swamped with a bunch of different vandal issues at once, and page move vandalism makes my head spin. I initially meant to indefinitely move protect the article and the talk page, then realized that that might be overkill, so I dropped the duration to 3 months. While my brain was still negotiating that, I was also thinking about the sock report I had to write, as well as trying to figure out what the correct article name should be. Whew! I'll take another look and try to fix my mess. I appreciate your note and that you're always looking out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No apologies needed C. A check of the article shows that you fixed things to the way they need to be. I sure know what you are talking about with the looming report. I find that SPIs and 3RRs talk up a hefty amount of time and energy to produce - especially if you want to be thorough. I am glad that things got straightened out. Cheers and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Over at AN/I...
I have reported a case of outing that should be revdel'd, but it doesn't look like any Admins are patrolling there right now. Would you mind taking a look if you are currently active? Thanks in advance!  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , good looking out! I've revedel'd the entire thing and emailed oversight. Would you please double-check to make sure I got everything? I'm not terribly experienced with RevDels yet, so I get a little nervous. Thanks man, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You could have used R4, Oversightable information, but the policy suggests not to actually say R4 in the edit summary (confused yet). So in short, R6 is fine, I suppose. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I blocked the IP for a week. Too harsh? Too lenient? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh, I would defer to your judgment. That's why you get paid the big bucks. A week seems reasonable. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There are more instances of this data in the user's additions today, as they were edit warring and inserted it multiple times - do you want diffs, or do you just want to nuke the whole lot?  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's my fault, I should have looked further into the history. I will take care of it. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy shit balls, that was a lot of effort. I've taken care of the outing concerns, but haven't looked at anything BLP related. Thanks, --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a shame there isn't a Rollback option for that sort of work... Thank you so much for the work!  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And one more here:  Plus a case of him calling an experienced editor by their first name, when I can see no indication of them using it on-wiki...  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible Owlfarm edits
Could be. We'll have to keep an eye on him. Also, I wonder if that IP might be an open proxy or something ... do you think I should request a check? Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not? We're all busy bees trying to keep the hive cool. :) Hope your weekend fares well! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Closure assist
Cyphoid, would you care to put on your admin hat and lend a hand at the following discussion: Talk:Doctor_Who_(series_7). There's one editor there grasping at straws trying to keep the discussion open so he can remove headings that note the division of the two parts of Doctor Who, Series 7. Several authors have commented in favor of them, that the season was divided as the headings indicate is well documented, and he just won't let it go. It needs an admin to pull the plug, or it will just go on and on. Thank you! --Drmargi (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've closed it. The discussion hurt my ADD brain. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Funny you should say that. I just took some Advil for a tension headache.  I sense a correlation.  Thanks, CB!  --Drmargi (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And then the editor had the nerve to undo the close and continue the discussion, then edit war over it. Sigh. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I just left him a message explaining why I asked Cyphoidbomb in particular to review the discussion, and suggesting he read WP:CONSENSUS to get a handle on the idea that unanimity is not required. We'll see what he says.  You boys both deserve a good stiff drink for handling the situation as you did.  --Drmargi (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, I've further commented on the talk page, culminating with a description of his unarchiving as edit-warring. If it persists, and I hope it does not, lemme know, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do, boss. Given what he said on Alex's talk page, I think he's ready to move on, but we'll see.  I know MarnetteD had quite a go-round with him a while back, something about reinventing the wheel.  --Drmargi (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:RVAN
I posted a report for Special:Contributions/Giubbotto non ortodosso. 123.136.107.78 (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about canvasing
I was unaware of the policy of the time, although looking back on it it's wrong. Should I submit a WP:SELFBLOCK or something? Sorry about that Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't think that's necessary. But you should consider striking each of those invitations, with strikeout text and then adding a note below each, something to the effect of. "Sorry, I was not aware that this constitutes WP:CANVASSING. Please disregard this invitation." Then, you should probably respond to my Admin note at the AfD and note that you've striken all the invitations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm on it right now, I'll post on the AFD discussion when it is all done. Thanks Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I struck out all the messages and left a notice that I did on the AFD, anything else that I should doto correct the violation? Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Diyar-e-Dil Rrun
It wasn't me who added the information first, but however, i searched that information and it was going to be released on that particular channel i mention. So i rewrite the sentence in a Wikipedia Style manual. And i never edit while logged out, i am a 24/7 logged in kinda editor.Instead of using "re-run" or "re-released" phrases i just wrote this in a broadcast session "It was released on Hum TV's sister channel Hum Sitaray on January 14, 2016 airing two episodes (Thursday and Friday) a week." Nauriya (Rendezvous) 17:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Giubbotto non ortodosso
They've ignored what you said to both me and them regarding In My Head and keep reverting my edits on various other pages Thakillabeatz (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hate Story 3
We have cited the sourced for our edits to Hate Story 3 in the Edit Summary. Please do not revert. 24.44.196.20 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.196.20 (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've explained on your talk page very clearly why your edits are inappropriate. If you submit the content again, your IP will be blocked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Viral Fever
The neutrality of The_Viral_Fever is being disputed. I have cleaned up the wiki page and I would like your feedback in this matter. I have linked to the changes made by me. Please let me know what you think. I would like to be able to remove the warning on the page regarding the neutrality. Any suggestions would be gratefully appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Viral_Fever&type=revision&diff=699769155&oldid=698202087 Manoflogan (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

BFlatley
Sigh...just come off his 2-month block and here we go again... Betty Logan (talk)

Liza Soberano
Hi, I'm Apettyfer yes there is nothing wrong of redundancy of referencing but then there this way of Same reference used more than once style See: WP:REFB That considers of what I'm trying to do right? Apettyfer (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your thoughts?
Hello, sorry to bother you but I wanted to know if you had any opinion on this matter. A page for the Noggin app has been created (by someone who added incorrect information to the "Moose and Zee" page before, so it is not the best quality) here, and I do not believe it requires its own article at the moment. However, in my opinion, the original Noggin television channel and a smaller section on the app would make for an appropriate page. Due to the channel's differences from the Nick Jr. channel (such as originally being a co-production of Sesame Workshop and Nickelodeon, its tween-oriented format at launch and other information that I have been able to find old references for), I believe that a page for it would work, but since it was redirected to the Nick Jr. channel's article after it was replaced I am seeking an admin's thoughts on what should be done. Thank you! Squiddaddy (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the delay in responding. I think this is a question better suited to WikiProject TV. Also, I'm about 2 days behind in my usual anti-disruption work and I need to get caught up on that before I start thinking about other stuff. :( Very sorry man! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's okay! I've started a discussion about what should be done on the WikiProject's talk page here. Squiddaddy (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:L (New York City Subway service)/GA1 and Happypillsjr
Cyphoidbomb, you posted a warning to Happypillsjr's talk page after the third in a series of GA nominations by Happypillsjr where not only were the articles clearly not of GA quality, but the reviews were opened by Happypillsjr, which is against GA policy (nominators are not allowed to review their own nominations). Mind, I think this is just someone who simply doesn't understand how the process works, but since I've explained the process on that selfsame talk page after each of the first three nominations, it's clear that this is unlikely to change.

As I've done with the last three, I'm going to tag the nomination page with a G6, and once it's gone I'll removed the GA nominee template and transcluded review page from the article talk page. The article clearly wasn't ready for GA: the WikiProject template on the talk page even includes a warning that the article does not have sufficient referencing. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've realized that I had simply returned the previous three nominations to the reviewer pool, but that would be a clear waste of time in this case, so I will be removing the actual nomination from the article's talk page once the review page has been deleted. Right after this nomination was made, Happypillsjr started this FAC. It has already been rejected (among other things, it has a refimprove template dating back to March 2015!), but making such a nomination takes cluelessness to a new level. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta
Tito Dutta (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Mail call
Bishonen &#124; talk 18:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC).
 * - Received, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dilwale (2015 film)
Hello. Previous protection (3 months) expired on 17 January, and the disruption (trying to portray a mediocre grosser as a top grosser) is in full swing again, with people doing everything from adding fake numbers with fake sources to just adding fake numbers with no source at all. Just check the page history for the past few hours. There's a request for protection at WP:RFPP, but nothing much happens there right now. Thomas.W talk 21:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - I'm confused, this archive you added shows a global gross of 381 crore. 148 crore is the nett in India, which isn't what gross is supposed to represent. Per Template:Infobox film, the value should reflect worldwide gross. Am I misinterpreting something? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That source was added by someone else not me, I just corrected to what that source says. If they want a different number they'll have to provide a different source. Tonights edits have included a high number with a source that didn't even mention box-office returns and a high number (Rs 381 cr) with the source in the article, which only supports Rs 148 cr. Plus a number of edits that just hiked up the numbers with no source at all. It's not our job to guess what a correct number is, it's up to those who want to add a different number to provide a source for it... Thomas.W talk 21:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - My mistake re: who added the source. You added the archive. Regardless, the source says 381 in the far right column under Global. That's the value we should be using, unless there's something that I'm missing. As a comparison, BoxOfficeIndia.com lists an estimated nett of close to 140c. But nett ≠ gross and nett will always be far less than gross. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Correction: I'm backstepping a bit, and have corrected the number in the article. The reference first says 148 cr close to the top, and then further down says 381 cr, obviously referring to two different things. It would have been far more logical to have it all in one place, and with a clear explanation... Thomas.W talk 21:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * - Oh, are we talking about poor logic in the reliable sources, because boy, I have a list a mile long! :) Thanks for taking a closer look at the info. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Himesh Kuttiyal/Archive
As you have looked into the subject socking case, can you also keep an eye on contributions of ? User:RAGHUallen and they have a lot in common. But as I am new to this drawer am not able to find a definite proof yet. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for your vigilance! Superficially, the naming seems consistent, with the mix of normal text and ALL-CAPS. He tended to not be able to distinguish between proper encyclopedic tone and promotional language, so I'd look for stuff like this, where TrendSPLEND uses "in the pipeline" language that would be more suitable for a press release. Also this article seems to have been edited by TrendSPLEND, RobertGRAND and RAGHUallen, which makes it a good place to look for evidence. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Parentheticals-response
In my defense, I thought the parentheticals would help describe the specific thing that you mentioned without overdoing the commas. If that is illegal, then I apologize for that. The Heart of Darkness being a black hole generator was not mentioned. The reality that Hulkling was known as King Hulk in was what I found about yesterday. If you want to also mention what I listed about Hulking in the Multiverse page, go right ahead if anyone hasn't done it yet. Was anything left out of this discussion? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi Cyphoidbomb! I think you need to have a look a the List of Thomas & Friends voice actors article, it is vandalised a lot. --ACase0000 (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Page protection
Hey, pal! Would you mind semi-protecting Endeavour (TV series) for a couple weeks? We've got a jarhead from Beijing who has decided the original movie that the series is based on should be called Pilot, not Endeavour (which is correct) because, you know..., the first episode is always called Pilot. He/she is reverting from a variety of IP's, and is not responding paying attention to the comments in the edit summaries. I'd start a discussion if I thought there was any point, but this is one of those lone-wolf editors determined to be right, and you know how that goes. Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've blocked it for a week since the problem seems to be limited to the last few days. If it flares up again, I'm happy to reconsider. You might want to take a closer look at Kobsters1's edits as well--I've had to remind him before not to remove references, yet I see him doing it here. I've left a note about this. I also notice the removal of sourced content here, in favor of unsourced content. Seems to me that most of the ratings info on this page is not directly attributed. That's (obviously) not ideal, but maybe there's no easy way to link to the ratings? I dunno. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I"m happy with whatever you think is appropriate. (That's why you get the big bucks!)  As long as we set things up so the turkey gets bored, we'll be good.  I'll keep an eye on Kobsters1 as well.  I did notice the name, but the pattern didn't jump out at me.  Off to joust with an ultra-nationalist editor...  Thanks!! --Drmargi (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

IP is at it again
Does this look familiar? (What would even mean? "Beel Evaans"?)  Eman 235 / talk  02:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Sorry, the behavior doesn't look familiar to me. I looked at the edit histories of some of the articles he vandalized, but I didn't see a pattern of IPv6 disruption at the articles I checked. I did, however, run into him myself today. Keep up the good fight, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Same geolocation/ISP/interests as these. Anyway, it's been blocked.  Eman 235 / talk  23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Ah, forgot about that. I've added the Bill Evans article to my watchlist. We'll see what that accomplishes. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Kalyeserye Episodes
Hi Cyphoidbomb,

I have a comment under List of Kalyeserye Episodes. Pls. check it out.

Tankytoon (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

complaint against User:ARNAB22
This is a complaint against User:ARNAB22 ...Sir i just found out from the talk page of this user that even u have asked him to behave. But he simply refuses to do so. For instance, on the Bollywood wikipedia page, he has been posting a new pic of Shah Rukh Khan even though there is already a pic of Shah Rukh given there. And in the caption he writes that Shah Rukh has won "most number of awards", without giving any citation. Every time someone removes this pic and citation, he again posts it there, despite being warned against this. He recently did this on 20 Jan, 2016. In addition, he uses poor English in many of his other edits, and has been warned on this too by other users (see his talk page). I request you to take action against User:ARNAB22. Thanks.117.197.23.118 (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided me with enough information to do anything, and it's a little odd that you've contributed nothing from this IP except to complain about this user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

On Fan Boy and Chum Chum
The show had negative reviews... It has a 3.3/10 on IMDb and a 2.6/10 on TV.com. It's a no brainer why they (Nickelodeon) didn't renew the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebrass11 (talk • contribs)
 * - While I find your comment delightful, I have yet to see a series cancelled because it received negative reviews on IMDb and TV.com. Wikipedia doesn't care about user reviews, because they can be skewed any whiny internet user, or a band of users, or a band of paid editors, or pernicious sockpuppets who have an interest in beefing against a series. Low numbers at IMDb may correlate with the cancellation, but it is a gross assumption to say definitively that low numbers at these sites are reflective of why the network cancelled the series. Your assertion needs to be supported by statements from reliable secondary sources, just like any other controversial claim. I will also point out that this series got 5.8 million viewers on its first showing, and I'd be willing to guess that on its worst day in first-run probably still got more viewers than the 1.4–1.6 million per ep range that TMNT is getting now. This suggests that other viewing trends (like streaming, or preference for Disney, or piracy, or whatever) might be affecting these series' fates more than crappy reviews at IMDb and TV.com. I strongly advise you not to restore such assertive content without providing sturdy references that support your analysis. Anything short of that will be contested, and based on the flimsy argument you've thus presented, you are not likely to prevail. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lucy
Hi, When u and she self say it that she was Lucy: How can it that she not mention it on her demo reel and how can it that her normal sound like's not Faragonda and Lucy? Which tricks she use it? And u don't know that she lie it or not lie/ly it.--Maxie1hoi (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are asking. I have replied to your other query on your talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean: U say it that she played Lucy and she self say it to! But why her sound like's not Lucy and Faragonda?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that she played Lucy. I accidentally said that Lillis said that she played Lucy. She doesn't mention Lucy in the video. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: List of Bella and the Bulldogs episodes
Not sure if you saw my ping on the talk page, but I wanted to add that I actually went through the articles I was watching a while ago, including Bella and the Bulldogs, and changed tvschedule to tvlistings because the latter is actually better. Looks like the formatting on tvschedule has been changed to look like tvlistings, but other than that both places are the exact same thing, so I'm not sure where the IP got the idea that the former is valid and the latter is invalid. The main reason for going with tvlistings is that tvschedule often has DNS issues—or whatever it was that Geraldo called them—and sometimes you don't see the anything but the overview, though people in other parts of the world still see everything else like the episode guide, and vice-versa, they'll only see the overview often times.

I won't change it back, though, and leave that up to you, unless you have no qualms about me doing so. That's why I reverted the IP, though you may have overseen it. Amaury (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , if you think the other version is smarter, please feel free to change it. I trust ya! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Plot of Kyaa Kool Hain Hum 3
Hello, Just noticed your message. Here is what i want to say to clear the confusion. 1. The plot is originally written by me (each and every word), without any reference to any website or other source. 2. Mouthshut.com has straight away copied the plot and they should be questioned. 3. I uploaded the plot three days ago, whereas Mouthshut.com has uploaded the plot just two days ago. It is very sad that my original work is been removed from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbunty (talk • contribs) 08:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well surely with your history of submitting copy/pasted content to Wikipedia you can understand why your prose contributions would be scrutinized. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Haven't you heard?
We have to for cleanup templates. Unless The New York Times says that an Wikipedia article has too short of a plot, you can't tag it as such.

By the way, be on the lookout for a vandal I call "the animation hoaxer". It's not as catchy as The Violator of Wikipedia, but I thought that was kind of over-the-top. Anyway, he adds casting hoaxes to upcoming animated films using existing citations. For example:. None of the names he added are mentioned in the source. I've been hitting ANI and AIV with new IPs as they pop up, but I'm worried that maybe I'm missing some of his hoaxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thanks. I saw someone the other day who kept adding a male US actor to everything. Can't remember who it was, but the James Woods thing reminded me of the other behavior. Shit, I wish I could think of it... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Was it the Phil Smeeton SPA? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC) edit: Oops, he's British. But that was one I noticed yesterday. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have seen a spate of these edits in the last couple of weeks, decent articles with notable actors having the actors changed within the article. It isn't easy to recognize or manage.  Bill Murray was one of the affected actors, in this diff.  I have no way of remembering them all, but if it would help, in future I can report it when I see it. Or maybe you already have enough of it on your plate...?  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's definitely this vandal. By the way, there was a discussion at WP:AN about adding a module to Twinkle to mark reverts as being part of an LTA case.  You guys might be interested in that discussion.  But if you see suspicious IP editors, feel free to add them to my userspace report.  I just started to catalog this vandal's IP addresses, and I don't have many of them yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Kalyeserye (Other Recurring Cast section)
Hello,, sorry to bother you again, but I need your help. This is in regards to the section, Other Recurring Cast, in Kalyeserye. I have noticed on this article's talkpage, that in November and December, you have already trimmed the character list and removed one-off characters, but like a disease, they keep coming back and adding more. I also noticed that on 19:59, 28 November 2015, you warned a particular user already regarding this and discouraged him from making the list unnecessarily long. The page protection does not exclude this auto-confirmed user from adding insignificant characters who do not have even more than 10 minutes of screen-time (ie. driver, back-up dancers of one-off characters even). I see from this user's talk page that he has a history of doing so and has the propensity to add unsourced content. Pls. advise. Tankytoon (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Which editor? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Jbr999 Tankytoon (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello - The user is at it again. Sooner or later, the fly that passes by the camera will soon have a credit on the article. Seems that he does not take warnings seriously as evidenced here, here, and here. Tankytoon (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again - Sorry to bother you, but another user is doing the same thing, adding inconsequential characters  like a lady who hands off a bag of rice  Other Examples: here, here, and here. I do not have enough tenure and not sure if I am justified in my observations, but I believe that only characters - including one-off - that contribute to the development of the story or the main characters' journey can only be included. I believe that Characters, especially where performers are unknown or unidentifiable, should be removed from the article - even if they appear in more than one episode (eg. cashier at store). I am trying my best to copy edit and add references to potentially questionable content to avoid violating copyright policies, but at the rate of having so much trivial information added to the article, it becomes problematic. Pls. advise. Tankytoon (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I dropped a note on Jbr999's talk page earlier today, so I think it's prudent to wait. If he continues the behavior, then we can escalate. I'll drop a note on the other editor's talk page to let 'em know what's up. Per WP:TVCAST, the project is only interested in significant characters, which are typically main and recurring ones. MOS:TV is a good resource for all things television. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - noted. Tankytoon (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Pls. note the second editor is adding more inconsequential characters and on his edit summary comments, he wants a separate page for characters - which I think will be another excuse to make the list so much longer than it already is necessary. See here. - Thank you. Tankytoon (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting assistance with User:Dr J Alvarez
Self admitted sock - per response on WP:SPI I submitted here, making personal attacks in edit summaries here, here and others and being disruptive. Could I get a block here for this serial sockpuppeteer? Thanks in advance for your assistance!  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism / block request
Hi - Can you pls. help block the following people/IPs for persistent vandalism: this one, this one, this one, this one. These edits are derogatory and disrespectful. Thank you!Tankytoon (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, pls. disregard this one by Oshwah as he is only doing editing test by reverting previous edit. Sorry my bad. And the rest I am not so sure if it is considered vandalism as I read again the wiki policy, but for sure they are harrassment. Thank you. Tankytoon (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * -, not going to do anything here. Some of the disruption you've linked to happened weeks ago. Oshwah's reversion, which introduced "dog" to the article was almost certainly a good faith mistake. He's a respected editor with tons of experience. The remaining IP editor has been warned. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - FYI, AngusWOOF appears to be working on the list of episodes article a little. He's a good editor and will be able to help a great deal. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thank you, but pls. look at the latest revision history of Kalyeserye and looks like first editor that I reported under character section is undoing AngusWoof's edits. Tankytoon (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've warned him again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

1: Nenokkadine
Cyphoidbomb, let me make it very clear about the present scenario. Telugu film trade used to consider only the distributor share of films as the revenue generated by the films since the inception. After the release of Baahubali, they started taking gross values into account and only a handful number of films' (released before Baahubali) gross values are available. If the revenue is not informed and i write it as a commercial success/failure, you ask for the revenue. When the only possible figure is available, you say it is not permitted. It is not a major success and hence, its gross value may not be available unlike those handful films (which are barely four or five in number). What to do? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your note. Let's start with "commercial failure". This isn't typical language used in an encyclopedia to describe a film's box office take, so I don't know why you would choose to use it. It's fairly easy to present the information without adding the needless editorial. We also shouldn't be using "blockbuster", "super-hit", "hit", or other entertainment buzzwords. I don't see anything here that mentions "distributor share", though to be fair, I also don't see the word "gross". This creates an ambiguity that we have to be careful about presenting properly. The value in the infobox should be used to reflect worldwide gross. "Distributor share" ≠ worldwide gross. Please note Template:Infobox film instructions. If that information isn't available, there is no harm in leaving the gross blank. As another matter, I don't understand why anyone gives a crap about satellite sales and soundtrack rights. None of this is of importance to WikiProject Film, which still has oversight over all Indian cinema articles. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then how to convey the matter that a film was a failure? For example, a film was made on a budget of say 10 crores. It was sold to distributors for 20 crores. The film grossed 35 crores but the distributor share was 17 crores. Now, that film is considered a flop. You want me to say, "It grossed 35 crores on a budget of 10 crores". This line makes one think it was a success as the return on investment is 3.5 times, but the truth is something else. How to convey this correctly to the reader? Please let me know. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to, in all cases, explain box office values. In the case of 1: Nenokkadine, if it cost ₹700 million to make, and only grossed (?) ₹289 million, it should be fairly clear that the film didn't do well, without having to add POV labels like "failure" or "flop". These words might be suitable for an entertainment column, but they are not appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. That said, for situations when it might be unclear whether the film did well or not, we would still be obligated per WP:NPOV to provide neutral wording, like "XYZ grossed ₹NNN million worldwide on a budget of ₹NNN million, which made it commercially unsuccessful.[1][2][3]" This is far superior to the inappropriate, subjective "failure/flop" labels. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for creating a Page of Prem Khan
Sir, Please create a page for actor Prem Khan. Please see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7592686/ Devil7592686.love (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in participating in this promotional bullshit. Also, IMDb is not a reliable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Thank you... --Drmargi (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about edit by blocked editor
Hi, Cyphoidbomb - Would you tell me if the edit in the following diff by a blocked editor is a legitimate improvement, ? Atsme 📞📧 04:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Without looking at it too closely, I'm going to say that it probably is not an improvement. Please note that the user was identified as a sockpuppet of Sm Sangeeth Sm77. Feel free to revert to your delight! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon
Some edits were good; some bad. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ripe Digital Entertainment
Almost none of IP edits were good. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock?
Just today I saw an IP changing the IPA template on Bill Evans to Esperanto again. I did a range search (which only works if you have a gadget enabled, as I recall) and it seems to me that Mr. 2001.8003.8 is IP-hopping. Thoughts? Eman 235 / talk 16:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Vnujadhav
The user User talk:Vnujadhav blocked by you gave a barnstar to User:Vinjadhav. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Spark (talk • contribs) 11:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - Thanks for the note. I did happen to notice that when I was poking through Vnujadhav's contrib history. Ultimately I decided not to do anything since the older account hadn't edited since 2014. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Singh Is Bliing page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=704935963 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F704935963%7CSingh Is Bliing%5D%5D Ask for help])

Doug
You do realize that the under construction tag has a time limit of "several days"? Not a big deal in this case, but in future ... Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your good point is noted. I think my brain erroneously remembered "hours". I've restored it.  Sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Whitetararaj
Pinne, njan enikku ishttam olla pole cheyyum. Kettoda, Cyphoidbomb. Thanks --Whitetararaj (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia. Try again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

DVD sets
Do DVD sets count as sources in the sense do they tell us which episodes are in which season of a program. Theoosmond (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - I'm aware that there's a discussion brewing at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials and I'm not going to subvert the discussion process by issuing an overly-simplified edict. That said, DVD sets can be used if appropriate, i.e. there's no blanket exclusion of DVD sets as far as I know. We have Template:Cite AV media notes, for example, which is used to cite DVD liners or other info. Primary sources can be used for non-controversial information. There are many variables to consider, however, like that some shows are packaged in arbitrarily ordered volumes and not in seasons. Take it case-by-case. Episode production codes are often helpful, if they exist on the liner notes, but that's somewhat rare and production order isn't always congruent with a program's story continuity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Saurab Kaya
Hello, Cyphoidbomb this is User talk:Saurab Kaya, let me tell you that when the actress Mahira Khan appeared on the show Tonite with HSY, she said that her birth year is not 1982 and said that she is 27 and all the references for her birth year is incorrect and requested the audiences to correct her birth year. You can watch that interview on YouTube. And she is definitely a high-profile and highest-paid actress because she has been listed in these statusrs at the Eastern Eye magazine, and I had also provided the references on her "career" paragraph.

If you have any problem or if you have understood that what I'm saying then let me know by leaving a message on my talk page User talk:Saurab Kaya. —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No surprise here, but the account is a ✅ sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, buddy!
Sorry to bother you, but my pet detractor you blocked is back with a new sock User:Drmargo. Would you mind taking a look and blocking? I left his garbage in place on my talk page for now. --Drmargi (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies . I removed it with this edit. You can still see the errant nonsense C with this link. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's OK. C is a clever boy, and will find it.  I just want the idiot blocked.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Bummer! Sad when people can't let shit go.  Anyhow, looks like Acroterion got it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. Between this guy and Roman888 (ancient history), it's getting tiresome.  Gad, it's a website, not the fate of the western world we're dealing with. Thanks for letting me bug you!!  --Drmargi (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Santo Bugito
Hello, I've decided to cite my source for calling Anivision a production company. Does that clear everything up, or should it still be taken down? - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't recall what the issue was. You should open a discussion on the article's talk page and seek consensus for your changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please help
Hi, some IP user is removing the US cast from Thomas & Friends series' and films. The user has did it twice now and it's getting annoying. Some of the pages the user messed up are Sodor's Legend of the Lost Treasure, King of the Railway, etc.

I posted a message to the user asking kindly to stop. --ACase0000 (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I can see the IP is replacing some pretty horrible cast tables with prose. You can't really fault him for complying with WP:TVCAST. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * - I'm a bit confused here. Why would we need to include the names of US actors if all they did was dub over an English series? In comparison, we wouldn't include the names of Italian actors who provided the Italian dubs. ?? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We should include the US cast for US readers. They are both english speaking so they both should be added. --ACase0000 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Based on what existing guideline? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you even mean? "guideline" --ACase0000 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Your question strikes me as trolling, and you should be taking initiative to find your own answers to basic questions like "what does __ mean?" Wikipedia has content guidelines, like the Manual of Style for television articles and the Manual of Style for film articles. You're arguing that the cast who performed the American English dub of a British production should be included. I'm asking you to provide the content guideline that supports your perspective. When we have content disagreements on Wikipedia, the strength of the argument is directly related to existing guidelines and policies. Otherwise we wind up with "but I just like it better this way" arguments. I am unaware of a content guideline that says that we should, as a standard, include the cast of all English-language dubs. If the series re-dubbed in Australian English, Scottish English, and Indian English, would it be your argument that we should include cast information for each one of these permutations? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not "trolling". I know what guideline means. I was asking you what you meant by guideline. The series is not even produced in England/UK. It is produced in Toronto, Canada at Arc Productions and they use the US cast for recording and rendering the CGI. The series has not been a full British production since 2008. I am a US reader/user. Myself and probably many other US readers would want to know who voiced the characters in the US dub of show. The UK dub, is actually dubbed over the US cast. --ACase0000 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - You should open a discussion at WikiProject Television to get input from the community on what sort of content belongs in the article. You're describing a series with far more variables than I personally care to address. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Khosa as candidate for merge
Hello Cyphoidbomb, I hope that you are doing well. Following your changes to the Khosa article, do you believe this would be a suitable candidate to merge (or redirect) to Baloch people? There are numerous other stubs like this, providing two or three sentences about a minor clan/sub-tribe which should most likely roll up to the parent tribe as a redirect, due to the lack of significant coverage. See Category:Baloch tribes. I've also raised a similar question at Talk:Baloch people, but am now wondering if we as a community should have a larger discussion as to how we might best proceed with this particular lot. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, in its present state it might be wise to merge/redirect it, though it would be prudent to first check to see what the standalone notability criteria for an ethnic group might be. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Cyphoidbomb. Currently there are only two participants in the discussion, with no clear consensus as of yet.  I had included the proposal at Proposed mergers late last month hoping to gain more traction.  Are there any other locations that you are aware of which would be appropriate to request broader community input?  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Well, you could always float an invitation by WikiProject Pakistan or WT:ASIA. Or a general RfC in a pinch. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you as always. I have cross listed this at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics.  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Kim Possible Characters
Hi, thank you for your advice. You are more than welcome to correct any grammar mistakes I've made. Content-wise, i believe that, as the title of the wiki page states List of Kim Possible Characters, the list should focus on the in-universe characters and their personalities, including stuff like catchphrases or running gags/jokes. Usually any references to the characters' source of inspiration would be included on the TV-show's own wikipedia page, as that page focuses on the show in it's entirety, not specifically on the Character List page, though very small real-world references are also included on occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelatti (talk • contribs)
 * Hi - WP:TVCAST addresses, particularly the final paragraph, which begins:
 * "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that really belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real world information on the characters and actors (this could include, but is not limited to, casting of the actor or how the character was created and developed over the course of the series)."
 * There is no material difference between a List of characters section at the main article, and a standalone List of Kim Possible characters article; the guideline is the same. The problem we often have, particularly in articles about children's television, is that enthusiasm for X series sometimes makes it difficult for editors to discern between encyclopedic content and trivia, and to enthusiasts of the show, every detail is just as important as every other detail. This is why the community emphasizes a focus on real-world context. You're always welcome to get a second opinion at WikiProject Television if you think I'm misinterpreting how a List of characters article should be structured. I won't be offended. :D Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Anarky
Can you reduce the protection of Anarky? It was vandalized because it was the TFA. Thanks. © Tb hotch  ™ (en-2.5). 00:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I'd protected it as a result of a WP:RPP request. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Raees (film)
This is a plot for an unreleased film. It does not require to be specific or detailed so it being vague changes nothing in the credibility of the article anyway. Sometimes the plot requires to be "vague" when it is merely a summary of a film. The issue lies in the fact that it is stated that The film criticises the prohibition of alcohol, prostitution, and drugs in Gujarat which is something INSANE to say about an INDIAN film.--Meryam90 (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way is it "insane" to say this about an Indian film? You're being vague about the vagueness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article stated as source itself doesn't know what the film's POV regarding these issues and anything stated in the Media is pure speculations and gossip. It is the smartest thing to be VAGUE about it till the final product is released to the public. Otherwise you are trying to be specific about something left vague by the makers themselves.--Meryam90 (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm intrigued that you're now you're making an unsubstantiated assertion that the media only has information based on speculation and gossip, as opposed to our usual assumption that reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking might actually have insight that we do not. So that's weird. I'll also point out that you still haven't adequately explained your "which is something INSANE to say about an INDIAN film" statement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * - Incidentally, I happen to agree with your perspective as detailed at Talk:Raees (film), particularly after discovering that some of the trades were copying Wikipedia. I have removed the content entirely, but I want to stress that I am not a fan of vague and unsubstantiated arguments, which you were relying heavily on. Gut instincts that the trades are speculating is not a compelling argument for ignoring what are typically considered reliable sources. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It is NOT gut instinct. I've been doing this for a long time and I have unfortunately been witness to several cases where the Indian media uses Wiki as a source for content that is questionable and it just turns into a mess. I still stand by my argument that vagueness in this case is the best approach since we neither does the media actually know what the film is about and Excel not RCE have released any plots or comments regarding the story. Using the term "criticises" in relation with the the prohibition of alcohol, prostitution, and drugs in Gujarat in an indian state means that the film does NOT agree with said prohibition...which as I said; is a dangerous statement to make, especially related to an Indian film seeing as how the indian community is very conservative and critical...--Meryam90 (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppet detected
Dear Cyphy, please block 90.217.191.31 for the sake of God. She's vandalizing an underrated show again (She reverted you edits)! This ip address is a sockpuppet of 94.10.107.222, a blocked ip address that is blocked for 1 week. She almost caused a fan war between the fans of the show and the Wikipedian.

P.S. How do I become an administrator? I don't want Wikipedia to become a fan war site. GoldenRainbow (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My reply to your comments
I'm not happy that you made dissed comments about me and my ways of editing Wikipedia articles. Two days ago this Wikipedian named Electricburst1986 called me "Immature" and my feelings was severely hurt because of his comments. My reputation as a Wikipedian is almost ruined by his replies and yours. I'm a good Wikipedian and a True American, what a True American does is fight what you believe in, not being on an enemies side. I've been a Wikipedian since late 2004. My feelings is also severely hurt because of your comments as well.

Thank you for your time. Please, think before you speak. Spencer H. Karter (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - You're free to be as unhappy as you wish. You're in full control of that. You're also in full control of your Wikipedia reputation. Your talk page comments contravene our talk page guidelines and they are disruptive, and your misuse of the minor edit feature is disruptive. If you stop misusing talk pages and stop misusing the minor edit features, your reputation will be unharmed. As for being called immature, I'd say you brought that on yourself when you thought to tack on a bizarre statement that you were at Wikipedia before ElectricBurst1986 was 10 years old, as if that's somehow relevant to any conversation or likely to make another user feel anything but small. Elevate your behavior, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I had to redo the edits that you removed on ex-Degrassi star Miriam McDonald, she's a real estate agent these days. She also has two Instagram pages https://instagram.com/miriamkatherine26 (Personal) and her Real Estate IG https://instagram.com/miriamkatherinerealestate and that's the proof that she's a Realtor these days. I just felt your reply to me was immature and arrogant. If I was Charlamagne from the syndicated radio show "The Breakfast Club" I would give you "Donkey of The Day" because of the displeasing comments you made on me. But on the positive side, I agree with you that my reputation won't be ruined. Thank you once again. Spencer H. Karter (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Both of those above links clearly don't meet what we consider to be a reliable source. I see your edits have been reverted, and you have been warned. Please take CB's advice and start behaving better -- samtar whisper 19:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Related to the Page of Shreya Ghoshal
People was removing her cover. I just undid it. Zafar24 (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sonam Kapoor
Thanks for neutralising the lead. A while ago, I came across an answer about her on Quora. I was aghast to find the 'outspoken' thing in our article (that too in the lead)! &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 18:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Shame that people can only talk about women's appearances and pick them apart. Anyhow, I'm glad I'm not alone in finding problems with the lead. You know what's interesting about the "outspoken" and "fashionable" thing? It was in the article when the article was promoted to GA. No seriously, look! I'm not throwing any stones, and I haven't done any research, but I don't see how the reviewer didn't flag that as fluff. On the other hand, I'm not an expert in GAs and FAs. I mostly gnome. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, this was pointed out in the previous nomination and was promptly removed - but I don't know why it was restored. As for GANs, we have to agree with this. &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 19:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Ah, I see you were on it! Nice! Would we say the same thing about a man being "outspoken"? Has the sound of unconscious sexism. I'm not going to read too much into it, but people should be thinking about that sort of thing. Would we describe a man as fashionable in the lead? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, I cannot answer because majority of our editors who edit Bollywood articles are only interested in women. To be very honest, these claims are too much for an actress who has been in the field for hardly eight years. This is purely promotional and no way encyclopedic. You might want to go through Cirt's comments (summary) in the link (previous nomination). &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 19:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing episode.
I was bold and closed the silly request at WP:ANI, which is not intended for content disputes. Dispute resolution may be a good article to read. Cheers, Kleuske (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Neerja
Hello, this is to inform you that a bot again removed the article's entry from Good article nominations page. Here's the source. I think that you are an admin so you can help. What to do? Жunal For You (☎️✍) 06:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , in this case, another editor pulled the plug of the GA nom arguing that it was premature. I'm inclined to agree. Good Articles need to be stable, and this is a brand new release, so details are still in fluctuation. The plot section contains sentence fragments, unnecessary parentheticals, and so forth. "Reveal" and "Revealed" are used too liberally, there are grammar issues, etc. The article isn't ready for GA. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, you are correct! I should had seen that, before coming here to you. Any way, doesn't matter. Жunal For You  (☎️✍) 05:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply to your Message
You are correct as usual, my friend. It was very foolish of me to get into an edit war on The Lion Guard. I will try to do as you ask if something like that happens again. I still don't get why that IP hopper doesn't want Disney-ABC mentioned in the infobox even if it isn't syndicated nor why a source is needed. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I know it's difficult, and I know you want what's right for the article. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Truth
I am not here to dis you, i respect your dedication to knowledge on certain subjects. I just want to clarify here why i made my edits: An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (also spelled encyclopædia, see spelling differences) is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Encyclopedias are divided into articles or entries, which are usually accessed alphabetically by article name. Encyclopedia entries are longer and more detailed than those in most dictionaries. Generally speaking, unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning - the subject for which the article is named. If there is a chronological discrepancy in the TV series' episode airings, it should be clearly stated in the episode list. Any information on the subject, trivial or not, can be included in the article, it makes them more interesting to read while staying objective. Nelatti (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Information about chronological discrepancies needs to come from reliable published sources, not from your personal observations and interpretations. When you arrive at a conclusion on your own like "This is a chronological error which can be attributed to the writers or the air-date of the episode", you're not introducing definitive facts into the article, you're introducing vague opinions. Clearly you don't know why there might be a chronological error, so you're attempting to guess. Guessing isn't allowed at Wikipedia because it constitutes original research. Same with "unlike the rest of her family, her name does not allude to the word 'impossible', possibly due to the fact that she is a Possible via marriage, not birth." It's not our job to guess why a cartoon character doesn't share the same name as another cartoon character. While there could be a more complex answer built upon a detailed family tree as you've posited, there could also be a far simpler answer: they just wanted something different. Either way, it's speculative to add, and doesn't belong in any article at Wikipedia. Wikia, maybe, but not here. I hope you can understand why, because if you cannot, you are certain to keep running into resistance from me and from other editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Cyphoidbomb. I'm actually busy watching the series now, and I'm a fan of it, so I'll refer to the Kim Possible List of Episodes as my reliable source, or you can youtube the episodes if you need to watch them first. According to the Wikipedia-page, the very first episode (aka the Pilot) is 'Crush'. In that episode, as I have watched it, Kim & Ron clearly already have met Shego and Drakken and have known them for a while, but in the 5th Episode, they have no clue who both of them are. The only explanation for that is a chronological error. Whether it's via the writers or the air-dates, it doesn't matter, an error is still an error. I have given you permission to correct my grammar when necessary, but that doesn't mean that the content shouldn't be in the article. Now, I understand that the 'production code' listed with the Episodes actually follows the chronological order, but it should at least be mentioned in the article that the episode numbers don't, because it confuses people if the article isn't thorough enough. I'm not upset at anyone, I'm just trying to help. Nelatti (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source because it, like IMDb, Wikia, TVTropes, TV.com, etc., is user-generated. Moving along, it might be worth a note in one (but probably not both) of the episodes to mention that there is an inconsistency, but speculating why that inconsistency occurred or attempting to draw meaning from it, is not suitable for inclusion, because it constitutes original research. Even calling it a "chronological error" is questionable because it suggests that there was an oversight in the writing, as opposed to the episodes simply being aired out of sync with production. Episode 5 may have been written before Episode 1, but maybe Disney felt it was a better first episode and aired out of order. Who knows? Certainly not you or I. Total speculation. So I might support the addition of something like ''Note: In this episode Kim & Ron meet Shego and Drakken for the first time, despite being aware of them in episode 1, "Crush". but any statement beyond that would need to be supported by reliable published sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cyphoidbomb Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just say that Wikipedia only accepts a reliable source? Because saying that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source, for another Wikipedia-article, is contradictory. Nelatti (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - It would be appreciated if you'd please sign your posts with four tildes ~ and please indent using an appropriate number of colons. Yes, Wikipedia only wants reliable sources. No, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference at Wikipedia because it is generated by users. From WP:WPNOTRS: Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. You may, of course, use references that you find in Wikipedia articles, provided they meet our guidelines on reliable sources. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cyphoidbomber I will, in the future, try my best to improve my grammar. I know that an established web-site (or newspaper, etc) will not allow any Wikipedia article to be used as a reliable source, but what still baffles me is that Wikipedia themselves don't allow it either? But anyway, let bygones be bygones. I have been using the proper references and links, though the only links that can be used, in the articles, are for related Wikipedia-pages. Nelatti (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of accolades received by 7 Khoon Maaf
Hi. Hope you're well. I note this merger discussion has been open for a month. Given how tetchy Bollywood article discussions can get, as a neutral, I was wondering if you're able to close it? Cowlibob (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, meant to get to this yesterday, but got swamped. ✅ Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

IP hopper
Hi. That IP hopper from Maryland is back, this time as. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Sheesh! Sadly, like so many we deal with, I suspect cognitive issues here. Blocked 6 months. Please let me know if you spot any others. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

CNN articles
Hey Cyphoidbomb! The IP is at it again. Do you think we can put a semi-protection (indefinite?) on both pages (CNN Tonight, CNN Tonight with Don Lemon)? Not a move-protected because they redirect it. I'm thinking more along the lines of semi-protection for only auto-confirmed users and not IP. The IPs should have to go through the talk page and request an edit... thoughts? 🍀 Corkythe hornetfan  🍀 21:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yay or nay? 🍀 Corkythe hornetfan  🍀 06:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , sorry just noticed your request. I'm not sure what the best approach here is. I've semied CNN Tonight with Don Lemon for 3 months on the basis that if they can't establish the article there, they will have nothing to redirect CNN Tonight to. Indefinite semiprotection seems a bit heavy for an opening move. Let's see how this goes. Also they have used accounts before like Soo9819, so you'll have to keep an eye out. It's an imperfect solution, but maybe it'll help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been keeping an eye out! Most of the articles they are editing are in my watchlist. 🍀 Corkythe hornetfan  🍀 01:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - If the IPs get a bit out of hand, it might be wise to seek out admins that are willing to do rangeblocks. I know that there is a category for this, although I don't have a link at present. I'm not so sharp on the technical stuff, so there are surely admins who might be able to quell this mess, since I don't think many IPs have been used so far to disrupt these articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Need a page deleted
Sorry for this drama, but I noticed that you're online. I've got a bit of an issue at Betty X (Artist). There's been a lot of drama surrounding this article, which I documented at Talk:Betty X (Artist) after I tagged the page for speedy deletion. In short, it's a repeatedly recreated page (usually under Betty X, which was protected). This new page is an attempt to get around the full protection of that article. However, my speedy deletion tag was reverted. I don't want to deal with this. Can you delete the page and possibly salt it? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Whoop. Looks like Yamaguchi got it. Might want to keep an eye out for other Betty X deviations like (singer) (entertainer) etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. This is a persistent one.  Well, thanks for looking in.  I think a film producer just discovered an article I wrote, so it looks like I'm due for more joy in my life. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool! Or not. Not sure how to read that. :) Apparently Betty has taken offense according to recent Twitter posts. I assume she's unaware of our notability guidelines and perhaps doesn't understand that nobody has bothered to properly establish her notability. I dunno. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think maybe my sense of humor might sometimes be drier than a desert. It's gotten to the point where even I can't always tell if I'm joking.  Now you'll have to interpret whether that's a joke or not.  I could use smileys, but, really, wouldn't that spoil the fun?  I'm not really sure how to better explain our inclusion criteria to Betty X and her fans.  My guess is that they do not wish to understand it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Remember I said that I think a possible COI editor may be editing an article I created? It's starting to get drama-heavy. He's insisting that positive reviews be highlighted as "rated fresh on Rotten Tomatoes" and that we use the RT rating as proof that it got "mixed reviews" – possibly to counteract several prominent negative reviews. He is also removing negative criticism from reviews that he insists are positive. The article is The Final Project. I'm worried this is going to turn into a redux of The Boy (2015 film). I don't care if he wants to load up the reception with positive reviews, but I object to highlighting them as "rated fresh on RT" and inventing some kind of RT consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but things seem to be simmering down a little. User has, but I think we're starting to move toward some kind of understanding and consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Okay, cool. I was going to leave him an NPA warning, but I'll hold off until you need me again. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I think part of the problem is my fault. I'm usually more calm and explanatory, but the past day or two has been a bit stressful for me.  I'm trying to work with him, but it's difficult.  Part of the problem is that a lot of the articles that I create don't get good reviews, and the positive aspects are difficult to highlight without breaking MOS:FILM or WP:RS.  I'm trying to explain this stuff, but I'm apparently not doing such a great job of it.  It's easier to stay calm and neutral when one hasn't created the article, I think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - You're not alone. I got a bit pissy at the Betty X article, and Ritchie333 called me out at WP:AN to suggest I cool off a bit. (I invited the scrutiny by asking for extra eyes at the talk page...) It happens sometimes. We shouldn't vilify ourselves, but we should obviously figure out a way to get a bit cooler. Lately I've been going through my watchlist and removing things that aren't Indian cinema related. It's not that I have any interest in Indian cinema, but it's a microcosm that needs a lot of scrutiny because of heavy corruption, paid editing, sockpuppeteering, etc. It's extraordinarily tricky maintaining a balance between friendly editor and "bad cop". I don't know that I have a specific point here, so I guess I'll just politely end this comment so's not to raise questions about my mental fitness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All I can really do is point out WP:CGTW, especially #2. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , Hah, but a sad testament for all of us who are clearly cut from stronger cloth. Or coolness will prevail... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

stop harrasment
some one is adding maintenance template to structured articles, please dont message me while I am editing, I am here to improve articles, not to trouble any one, please dont trouble me, i request you Vakthruthva (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

explanation
From now on, I will explain clearly, you too please dont add maintenance templates to structured articles with good inline citations, you cant add maintenance templates to every article, if i did any mistake please undo my edits, i do not have any POV style, but kindly dont message me. Vakthruthva (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta
Tito Dutta (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

point of view
Kindly stop your point of views and stop following me, just because you dislike an article, doesn't mean you could add silly maintenance templates on well structured articles, may I know about your agenda driven vandalism Vakthruthva (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a rather silly request considering that's part of an administrator's job. And even if he weren't an administrator, he could still apply maintenance tags to articles where appropriate. You really have no right to demand that he stops. Amaury (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - All true. Please also note my reply on his talk page. The maintenance tags were restored because the editor did not explain his rationale for removing them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)