User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 3

Fescal
Hi Cyphoidbomb,

The information in the article is legitimate and so are the references. Many other artists in the same genre as FESCAL have cited the same source and nothing has been said about there page? So why target this page? Surely if it's consistency that is sought after then all pages should be flagged, not just this one. I see this as a malicious attack for no reason other than to degrade an artists profile.

If you want, I can send you a lot of links of other artists on wikipedia with the same citations. Further, I would hardly say that ABC Radio National. is an unreliable source, which is stated twice in the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimoninIceland (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, according to the nomination, the nominator's objection is about the subject's notability. Notability criteria for musicians can be found at MUSIC. The fact that other articles have similar problems is not a valid reason to keep the article. The problems with each should be resolved. If you want the article to remain, you should respond to the deletion discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Fescal. But more importantly, you might consider providing more indications of the subject's notability. Some of the sites used as references look like blogs, to me. Those aren't typically considered reliable sources as any well-funded publicity company could slap together a bunch of blogs, hire people to write reviews, and use them to promote their clients on Wikipedia (which we frown upon, by the way). There are a lot of squirrely paid editors out there who litter Wikipedia with articles simply to promote. If you want the article to remain, I would encourage you to find mainstream publications that speak about the subject significantly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Cyphoidbomb,


 * I feel that bringing this artist into doubt has been done with poor judgment and a lack of research, not to mention respect. The notability is with a ring of truth. I can agree with you to some extent that his existential mainstream limelight is limited, but this is not to say that this artist has never featured in the public eye, refer to references for proof. So I'm afraid the flags you raised of "Notability" are fallacious and it is hoped that folk can see this.


 * With respect to your other flag of "unreliable sources", I'm afraid that I can not agree because I know of all the sources and have seen them figure in the area of music for over a number of years as an admissible place of publication about music (if you want to know the who runs the magazines and what is their editorial policy, I encourage you to make contact with them). I do agree that from one's first impression that they can look very amateurish, but the reliability of the sources should not be brought into question and can be sought after if required.


 * Further, I find your comments about myself being, to quote "And if you have a close relationship to the group, or to a company that might have been hired by the group, etc., please read WP:COI. It's somewhat peculiar when a brand new user leaps into a the fray on a 2 week old article, and starts deleting other people's edits and making accusations of vandalism." condemnatory and unwarranted. The reason I joined wikipedia was to show people the truth and to revoke the ill will that has been done towards this artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimoninIceland (talk • contribs) 20:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, If another user has a problem with a subject's notability, editors can either work to better establish that notability, or do nothing and the article might be deleted. Your best bet is to find more "mainstream limelight". You are welcome to disagree with me on the reliability of the sources, but your opinion doesn't preclude me from adding those flags. The article belongs to the community, and the cleanup tags are used to communicate to the community that there might be problems with the article in need of improvement. Wikipedia has a culture and established guidelines for the type of content that goes into articles and the sources that are used to support that content. That's why I keep trying to draw your attention to WP:RS so you can read up on what type of resources qualifies as a reliable source As a new user, you are understandably unaware of these things, and that's fine, and I'm happy to provide you with some information. But you may wish to reconsider the inflexibility of your position, as the sources may not endure the scrutiny of the reliable source noticeboard and may wind up impacting other articles. No disrespect was intended by suggesting you might have a conflict of interest, we see those all the time and we try to educate people appropriately. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Cyphoidbomb,

I understand what you say and at the same time I accept that there is a lot to learn about Wikipedia, and this is something that I'm prepared to learn. Nonetheless, I feel people should open up a conversations about a subject before condemning the article for deletion? Surely, it would have been better to get some kind of consensus on the subject before making the decision to flag it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimoninIceland (talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion will occur and consensus will be established during the Articles for deletion process, which typically lasts 7 days. You don't need consensus to start an AfD. If consensus already thought the article should be deleted, it would probably have been deleted by that point. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

[ http://r4rating.com r4Rating.com]
Good call on Athul noble (talk). I'm glad the admins agreed. One addition here and there would have been one thing, but this guy was really spamming that site. Thanks for inviting my comments. I sincerely appreciate that. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah! I appreciate that you took a moment to toss in your chips. That doesn't always happen, so thank you for the assist! Going to RSN was a formality. It's clear that it is not a reliable source, and the shady behaviour of the main actor, who appeared to be here only to spam his site, was offensive. And his defense of "Why my website is considered as spam all others are doing the same." is just face-palmingly pitiful. I've reported the site [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#r4rating.com for blacklisting], but I have no experience doing that, so I don't expect much, especially since this was essentially a manageable spam campaign. I've gone through a bunch of articles and reverted all obvious instances of the site. Hopefully the two of us will be able to remember that "r4rating=crap4ever". Zing! Thanks again, m'man. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problemo. Any time. And crap4ever it is. —Josh3580talk/hist 08:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw the blacklisting was denied but only because it was from one user. If you see it being added anywhere else (and remember you can use the linksearch from the spam report!) by another user, put it back on the list and reference that previous report! I so despise spammers ... Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a bummer, but I wasn't too surprised. I didn't know about the link search! I'll bookmark that, thank you. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been wondering, what ever happened to the OLD Wikipedia?

Best regards, Sunjerbob Sunjerbob (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Upperhouse01 blocked, Junior Writers Awards page deleted
Hi Cyphoidbomb, De728631, I was blocked, since you think I am doing some Advertisement or Promotion. But I would like to let you know the Junior Writer Awards is hosted by Norton House Global Education Initiative - a non-governmental organization (NGO). We would like to get more people knows it is a charity event for all students in Hong Kong and Macau (may be more countries next year). They all free to join. No hidden charge. JWA is a multi countries and high level English literacy competition. Some of the advisors and judges are very famous in Hong Kong and Macau. Some of them are government officials. I hope you can understand the Events and guide us to do well in Wiki. Please unblock me and restore the related doc. Thanks

South China Morning Post - 2014 March 18

http://www.yp.scmp.com/home/website/article.aspx?id=6407&section=hong

Macao Daily - 2014 Mar 20

培正生獲少年作家潛質奬 - http://www.macaodaily.com/html/2014-03/20/content_887678.htm

永援教師校本培訓 - http://www.macaodaily.com/html/2014-03/20/content_887679.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonreg (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, I think you might have missed my pre-emptive response here: Apparently some of you are having difficulty understanding that "promotion" isn't restricted to "for-profit" organizations.  Promotion can also involve the advertising of non-profit events. In your statement above you say, "We would like to get more people knows it is a charity event for all students in Hong Kong and Macau" Surely that would strike you as promotion, no? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Cyphoidbomb, sorry for any inconvenience caused. What I can do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonreg (talk • contribs)
 * What you can do now is not promote. If you want to present the Junior Writers Awards as an encyclopedic article, then you should read Your First Article and you should probably go through the Articles for Creation process so that you can get the article up to speed with references from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If your sources are mostly in Chinese, you might consider asking the Reference Desk for help translating the content or with providing some balance to the article. You are at a disadvantage because you are talking about a writing award event that hasn't happened yet. So the SIGNIFICANCE of the event probably hasn't been established yet. An important thing to remember is: not everything deserves a Wikipedia article. And if you want to advertise, buy local advertisements. If you plan to copy/paste promotional content from the main site, you might as well turn your computer off, because it's not going to make the cut at Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a billboard. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Cyphoidbomb, the JWA Ceremony was held on Mar 16. And now I update all the prizes and related parties to it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonreg (talk • contribs) 07:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Cyphoidbomb, thanks for the advise. The Junior Writers Awards Wiki Page was restored to User:Gordonreg, Since the Awards already gone, people will search the wiki JWA for more information, is there anyway to move page to article space? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.203.63 (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the Awards already gone, people will search the wiki to get more JWA information, is there anyway to move page to article space? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.203.63 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Cyphoidbomb, any update about the unblock request (upperhouse01, gordonreg)? how about the JWA page? any suggestion to me? (121.202.55.133 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC))

New message at help deskLbertolotti (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
You posted on my talk page that I have new messages on the help desk, but I could find none.Lbertolotti (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Your request for adminship
Hi Cyphoidbomb, I have closed your request for adminship as unsuccessful; there was no consensus to grant you adminship at this time. Fortunately, most people in opposition provided you with excellent feedback on how you can improve and many had praise for you. Given how your responses to people throughout your candidacy indicated your willingness to learn and improve yourself, I'm sure you'll work on said concerns and will easily pass your next request. I do hope that this result hasn't discouraged you. Good luck. Acalamari 22:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for your work and for your input. I do feel discouraged, actually. The worst aspect of it is that it means the community has decided I have to continue to spend more time than necessary repairing unnecessary problems created by disruptive editors. Anyhow, thanks for your note! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Second that. Six months of solid AFD and/or CSD tagging and you'll be all set. Best of luck! § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate your support, faith and your input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Try hard and in six months, I'll definitely support you the next time around. Keep up the good work! I will look forward to seeing you become an admin when October rolls around. Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I too am very prepared to support you in a few months--please let me know when you are running.  DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Your message
Hello Cyphoidbomb. Thanks for your message concerning your RfA. You say "assuming earnestness on my part to improve or to go easy if I became an admin" - Well, you're putting the cart before the horse. In a general way, the RfA process serves for the candidate to show aptness before the admin tools are handed over, not to promote somebody and then see which way the cat jumps. I suggest you get busy in admin-related areas, and show that you can do it. Good luck next time. Kraxler (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Amaryllis Gardener talk 16:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I HATE YOUR GUTS
Lol :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pow 2014 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Good luck
If you want to be an admin, you know what you need to do. I think it would be worth your time, I think you would make a really good admin. A WP:NOTYET is a decent result, and the opposes seemed to think it was only a matter of time and experience. I look forward to welcoming you to The Cabal in due course :-) Guy (Help!) 14:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Connormah (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob Shaheen
This article needs independent, uninvolved eyes. Determined SPAs have been chipping away at it for years. The solution, in my view, is not tagging it, which may be perceived as a victory by those who want to erode it away.The solution is for uninvolved editors, like you (and me), to watch the article, defend it against ongoing war by attrition, and improve it when possible. But if you really, truly believe that the tags are necessary, so be it.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Tone response
When I just visited the Randy Cunningham: 9th Grade Ninja page, I didn't think the tone was wrong. This tone template wasn't there before. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!
Dear Cyphoidbomb, thank you so much for protecting LG Williams from continued WP:Vandalism and acts of disruptive editing. Your work and oversight is great contribution to the Wiki community and fully appreciated. Much respect and thanks for your diligent oversight and efforts against WP:Vandalism and disruptive editing. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 23 April
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) 00:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On the List of The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) episodes page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=605510869 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%2F605510869%7CList of The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) episodes%5D%5D Ask for help])

Regarding List of The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) episodes
I do know that adding all international air-dates is not appropriate. But the only reason for adding Indian air-dates to the page was because the episodes 4 and onwards are going to air on Cartoon Network in India before they air in the USA. So I guess you can add the Indian air-dates or atleast air-dates of those episodes which premiere on CN in India before they premiere on CN in USA. You can add them atleast as a Note that they aired before CN USA. --Kanhakris (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Kanhakris

How I got those production codes
At 10:30 pm every day on Nicktoons they air Rocko's modern life in it's product ion order and that's how I found it out and thank you for asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adfsquared01 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronald L. Jackson II
In response to your question: this article, and now our article, say he's written/edited 12 books, and the list has 12 items, so my feeling was that they were most likely to be books (and thus, ought to be italicized). – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A reasonable assumption! Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin help
Howdy! Is there any way to find out who created this deleted article: List of programs broadcast by GO!? The logs only show who deleted it. I'm looking into some sockpuppet stuff. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Billy Liakopoulos  Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sefcik
Not a doubt in my mind it's Finealt. Go ahead and tag it in an SPI, this looks open/shut, especially on the usual blanking on the Sam & Cat list of episodes and the usual quixotic nomination of the Nick UK/I list.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We'll see...I've filed the SPI in the meantime. If their response is to file an AfD about Canada or Earth like they did with the US article the last time before they were blocked, we'll know for sure.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Meme
We need to change the pronunciation to Me-Me. To many people pronounce it plus would be fun to see the educated ones end up wrong. Just a thought?

VR EM3.14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteinmonkey3.14159 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Barracks Complex in Września
Hey, I add new links, please look and maybe delete information of orphan.--Pawel Ruminkiewicz (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, the orphan tag tells editors whether or not other articles link to Barracks Complex in Września. According to the following page, no other articles on the English Wikipedia link to the article yet: Special:WhatLinksHere/Pages that link to "Barracks Complex in Września". If you can find any other relevant article, you can add a link to "Barracks Complex...", and delete the orphan tag yourself. I hope that helps. If not let me know and I'll look into it a little more. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

External media
This template is not meant to display an image, just give a link to where one legally exists. It is meant to be used where we don't have a free use image and would still like to give a pointer to where an image exists to illustrate the appearance of a person. It gets removed when we find a free-use image to put in the infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it. I appreciate the explanation! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Modi00 is a bad user
Modi00 vandalized the page disney channel as of 22 May 2014, please block Modi00, Modi00 vandalized the page disney channel on thursday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabucho105 (talk • contribs)
 * Unclear how their edit constitutes vandalism. And saaay, aren't you a sock operator who's been blocked multiple times for persistent disruptive behavior? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

but the trouble notice is that Modi00 upload files with copyright and vandalizes the article liv and maddie since last year.

Edit request
Please can you remove the non-English countries from the broadcast section of Cloud 9 (2014 film). They are discouraged by WP:TVINTL. Thank you. 66.87.81.109 (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
The edit that you thanked me for was made by an editor who has made 77,000 edits in 9 years and yet still adds speculative content regularly. Amazing really. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 188.29.165.152
Could you possibly look over 188.29.165.152 edits? Whoever's operating it keeps blatantly and falsely changing the country of origin for entertainment articles. I think it's a sock of Fidelis ofoajoku (or the other way around?), who bears a similar editing pattern. I'd report it myself, but you seem more adept for this kinda shit, lol. – 23W (talk · contribs) 19:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks like they're the same editor. I've warned both about using flag templates in infoboxes but editors reverting other changes need to explain exactly what the problems are and warn more if polite explanations have no efect. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 2 edit reverted
Your comment was: "The primary source (the episode) can be used for a plot summary. If you dispute the accuracy of the content, that's a different story." I was unaware that this episode had already aired and it does not seem like it has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdpal (talk • contribs) 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry man, I botched that up. You are absolutely correct. I have removed the unsourced content and memorialized my mistake in the edit summary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. I was thinking it might have already aired somewhere but I missed it. - Jdpal (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: The Buneary Show
Eh, we can cross that bridge when we get there. IP was also blocked for a few weeks as it appears solely to be a sockpuppet. Keep me abreast if anything changes. Cheers Sasquatch t&#0124;c 22:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thank you again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Gumball
If you can feel it can be better phrased, I have no objection to you phrasing it differently. I just reverted the edit per WP:BANNED and really have no preference one way or the other since I don't watch/know the show.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit is not from banned user and nowhere does it say that Gumball is 12 years old. End of story. 66.87.152.222 (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

to cyphoidbomb
If I didnt know how to do this I wouldnt be on this shit ok, so stfu already and leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:7740:9D00:A1C9:F79A:C4FF:9D7C (talk • contribs)
 * Say whut there, big boi? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverting edits
Hello, Why are you always after me I mean any edit even if it is good you just can not accept it you just make me want to kill my self! at least come to a great consideration Please reply174.91.88.39 (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tristan.andrade.136: Firstly, don't kill yourself. Secondly, the community, not just me, has decided through a ANI discussion that you chose not to participate in, that you are not yet ready to make constructive edits here, because you don't seem to understand or embrace Wikipedia policy, you haven't demonstrated an ability to adjust to criticism or use resources at your disposal, you don't yet have the skill to edit, most of your edits are problematic, and you continue to edit even though you have been asked not to edit here anymore. Per WP:RBI, your edits should be reverted on sight, and they will be, even if they are "good" edits.  We've spent far too much time correcting your work.  That said, it's not a permanent ban.  Come back in 2 years.  Edit to your heart's content at Wikia and learn from your peers until you are strong enough to return and contribute constructively.  And frankly, your peers shouldn't be the only people to teach you.  Make your parents/guardians sit down with you and help you work out your English skills on a kid-friendly site. It's neither safe nor educational for a kid to be sitting in front of a computer without parental supervision. When you come back as a stronger editor, I'm sure you and I will have a good laugh about the good-ol' days when you were a n00b. Relax. Learn, grow, come back in 2 years.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Little Einsteins Rollback
Your recent rollback of vandalism is appreciated, but you rolled back past a version I added that fixed a major layout issue. Was that intentional? --RossO (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think your edit was a casualty of war. At some point the overview box got munged (it was munged even in the revision you edited.  Since it didn't appear much had changed except for the munging and some questionable edits, I went back to the last version where the box seemed to work. Certainly not a comment on your skills.  I'll be sure to add back your edit.  Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for the note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yankesjess82
Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Bearian! (Wow, he's been at AIV 4 times?  They grow up so quickly...)  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, actually he's been blocked 4 times! Bearian (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sad, really. All that hard work just to trick one or two children. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay.
Okay firstly, how was it considered insulting to him and secondly I can't stand users that consider me as a BAD USER, which I'm NOT. The Truth is, It frustrates me like that some users regardless they are doing the right thing are just rude and constantly have it their way and make all the non-admin users the blame, (e.g have a source this, have a source that etc...). Doesn't anyone pay ANY attention to all the billion article pages these days. I'm sorry, but I just open up the truth to my point and I don't need to be BLOCKED FYI.50.171.11.116 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Wikipedia is a community project, not a one-man show.  One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is civility. Calling someone "anal", which is short for "anal retentive" or "a tight-ass", because you don't like that they're following Wikipedia policies, is not civil. Editors are expected to comment on the content, not the editor. If you don't understand how to edit here, that's understandable, and it's something you will learn through experience, but getting mad at other editors because of your own unfamiliarity with this community project, is not constructive and it doesn't make you look like a valuable member of the community. Looking through your talk page history, I notice that you've been warned for edit warring, unconstructive editing, you were brought to AN3 for edit warring, you were previously warned for making incivil comments to me. If you are easily upset when people revert you or correct you, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you to edit. This is a collaboration. You don't get to have your way. If you can't play nicely in the sandbox, the admins will take away your pail and shovel. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think he's back
Check this out. I think that he's returned to vandalize once again. This should provide some really useful information for any future SPI cases we open up for the sockmaster. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

About Minor edits
Project assessment(from nothing) can be considered as Minor edit? One of the script I used, it considered it as a minor edit.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 08:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've not done many, if any project assessments. WP:MINOR suggests that talk page comments should not be marked as minor, and adding visible templates in articles should not be marked as minor (which I just learned before typing this. I'll have to change that in AWB...) So adding the two of those together, my guess is no, it probably shouldn't be marked as minor. On the other hand, WP:MINOR neither calls itself a policy nor a guideline, so there's that! Sorry if I didn't help.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So far, I have made 100s of related edits, I tried to keep them out of 'minor' editing. I had no ping from you, I had added this page to my watchlist. This is not even the first time that ping is not working, something is wrong with that template.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 16:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , the first time I saved the comment I forgot the U in the pinger template and had to come back to add it. Maybe it doesn't work if you add it after the fact? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This time I had it.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 16:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have seen people complaining like "It wasn't a minor edit, stop misusing that option", my question was that how they even identified the abuse of 'minor edit' option?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 17:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't ignore me Cyphoidbomb. Face-plain.svg Remember again, you have to become admin in about 6 months, only 4 months left. Until then, you have to keep assisting me with stuff.. Emblem-extra-cool.svg  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 05:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry, I didn't intend to ignore. There are many corners of Wikipedia that I have yet to explore, and I think this is one of them. I've not done any scripting, so that's another world I'm unaware of. I also don't know how to answer your question, in part because of my own ignorance, and also because I don't think I have enough information.  Presumably, some editors have a ton of pages in their watchlist, and if they notice you jamming through a bunch of their watched articles tagging stuff, that might draw their attention.  Or maybe as they're patrolling Recent Changes, they happen to notice the m and the byte count.  Or there might be some other functionality that they are utilizing, that marks minor edits with a certain color, for example, or maybe they have their own scripts that compare minor edits to byte counts just so they can yell at you!  In general Preferences, I see tick boxes that exclude minor edits from certain areas, so it's conceivable that some editors are looking out for discrepancies. To be honest, I rarely take notice of minor vs. normal edits.  I haven't yet (in almost 17,000 edits) put this information to any significant use, except for if I happened to notice a kid remove a ton of data and try to sneak it past everybody by calling it minor, but in that case, the removal of content is the problem, not the fact that it's marked m.  Maybe some editors are predisposed to notice crap like that?  :)


 * As for the admin thing, I don't think I really want to go through that shit a second time. Though I did get some valuable information about how I can improve, and I've put some of the AfD/Speedy Delete criticism into practice, the process of having to win the confidence of people you've never worked with, was a bit souring. Oh well. I'll just keep jamming up the admin boards with red tape.  Anyhow, thanks for remembering.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Different people, different culture, different opinions.. Although each of them should make sense. It went pretty good, "no consensus" neither accepted or declined. You just have to be more active with these technical issues. Keep your hopes up.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 08:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I've learned now. What happens is that some of the people have disabled "minor edits" from displaying on their watchlist, if they have strolled on the page where they would find some huge edit and ask themselves "How I overlooked?", answer is that the edit was considered to be "minor edit" by the original editor, thus no display.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. Makes sense. Thanks for the note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding ISPmanager
Dear Cyphoidbomb,

please reconsider deletion of the ISPmanager page, it was deleted for the fifth time already

We believe that our article does not container advertisement, but only description of functionality, features and functions that our product brings, as well as some information about our company, the developer of ISPmanager.

We based our article on the articles about cPanel and Plesk Panel. Our goal is to give information about product's features that can be interesting for our potential and existing clients. We are a software development company that is well-known in Russia. We have many clients abroad and some of them would like to contribute to that article, but do not have such opportunity. And we also want more clients to know about our product and we believe that Wikipedia is a great tool for that, but unfortunately, we are not allowed to tell people about us.

Besides, we analysed cPanel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPanel and Plesk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesk articles - they develop the same products as we do - and did not find references to well-known publications, magazines, world newspapers, and so on. For example, cPanel has 14 references, most of them leading to their own web-site.

Could you please advise us magazines or web-portal or newspaper that will be a real proof for you that we just want people to know about us via Wikipedia, and we are not going to promote ourselves on your pages? I can see that they were published at http://www.hostreview.com/, http://www.theregister.co.uk/ and http://www.thewhir.com/. Are those sources good enough?

Thank you for your time and waiting for your reply,

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksenyaphil (talk • contribs)


 * Replied at your talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Jordyn Taylor
Hi ! Thank you for your message. I just have a question. Why you changed what I wrote about Jordyn Taylor saying that references are needed while there is almost no references in the whole article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliforniaJordyn (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, the article is under-referenced, and yes, that is a problem, but that does not represent an invitation to add more unsourced content. Earnest editors should hold themselves to a higher standard than lazy editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So in that way, everything wrote on the article must be delted right? And the things I wrote were exact because I know the person but I know there is no references on internet about that. Could you just please let the things I wrote, at least just one month until I find references. Thanx CaliforniaJordyn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Wikipedia does not allow original research, which is what you are describing. That is, we can't go to a library and research your brain the way we can with a book or newspaper or website.  Wikipedia has no deadline, so there's no reason for the content to be there until it can be sourced. If the subject has a website or a blog and has spoken about her ancestry and where she studied, etc., it would be acceptable to use that as a reference.  We can accept small amounts of non-controversial content from WP:PRIMARY sources. To answer your other question, yes, much of that content will have to be removed. In fact, I'm not even sure the subject's notability has been properly established--the article could conceivably be nominated for deletion.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Query
Which one of us is deaf and which one is dumb? :-) --Neil N  talk to me 16:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I'll take dumb! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What's that? Speak up! I can't hear you. --Neil N  talk to me 16:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Kekekeke! Seriously though, I don't understand how she arrived at that. We critiqued inappropriate editing, so she called us deaf and dumb, as though that's the two worst things in the world to be?  What planet is she from?  "Hey, you're in my parking space!"  "Oh yeah?  Well you can't speak because you were born with a disability!"  "No, I speak fine, now get the fuck out of my parking space." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At least she's moved on from the parking space (I hope). --Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Toonami / Black Lagoon comments
Thanks for the supporting comments regarding Black Lagoon on Toonami. We did due diligence in waiting until the schedule was announced, informing people about the possibility, and waiting for the adult swim calendar day to appear before taking action to remove the entry. I don't see how it can be done any sooner or later. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - Yeah, I suspect some of the upset comes from lingering dissatisfaction with the removal of the parental ratings. Perhaps it will subside... Edit well, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like another editor is splitting the two series, but he's an old stubborn one, so I'm not gonna fight it. You can see his reasoning in the comments. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: Should this Kip Mckean tactic that Kip Mckean and his followers use be included on Kip Mckean's page?
If there is good proof/evidence of this should this be included in the Kip Mckean page? As a former member of the International Churches of Christ when Kip Mckean was the leader of the ICOC, Kip often told us to use the definition of the word cult when someone calls the ICOC a cult. By using the definition of the word cult, as suggested by Kip Mckean, ICOC members would supposedly be proving that all Christian churches are cults. Qewr4231 (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are asking me. Any content that you are proposing for addition in any article needs to both be notable, and be backed up by reliable sources, like mainstream magazines, newspapers, books, and so on. Personal experiences are considered by the Wikipedia community to be original research and should not be included. So if you're asking if your personal experiences or observations should be included, no, they should not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

IP hopper?
Hi. I have a question concerning the IP user who has been causing problems with the Winx Club and Legend of Korra-related articles. That user who was disrupting the Winx Club episode lists, the Sailor Moon Crystal episode list ( and, in which I found some violations of WP:V and WP:NPOV, as well as dubious changes) and the Winx Club characters has used the IPs and  and both geolocate to Maryland. This IP was already blocked as and, so I suspect that this is definitely an IP hopper as well. I've already reported it at SPI, but what are your thoughts about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Thanks for reaching out. Looks pretty ducky to me, and they certainly have a consistent number of articles in common. I do see value to logging some behavioral types "on paper" so there is a record of their quirks and methods. So, like, if we know they edit from Maryland and fancy Winx Club and such, there is a record of that, which may make it a little easier for other editors to find, should a new incarnation come along who also edits Winx Club and Sailor Moon. (Example.) Though in my experience, at some point the usefulness of reporting numerous IPs tapers off, and in most cases I'm advised that the ranges are too wide to block, and it is often more effective to file page protection requests for vandals who focus on a few specific articles, or just making note of the original blocked IP, and reverting with the summary "Block evasion: 108.51.173.37 WP:RBI". I've recently had to ask for page protection on a few Disney-related articles because a Vietnam-based IP is on a hoax campaign, and a few Amazing World of Gumball articles because of some persistent nonsense. In this case, I'm glad you pointed out some other IPs that you've linked to them since we've basically just been stalling them out until they committed their fourth act of disruption. The odd thing is that many of their other edits are constructive. Seems a shame that they're neither communicative nor consistently constructive. If I can help any other way, please let me know!  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think you might can help me out on the SPI. If the IP hopper causes further disruption to those articles, we can WP:RFPP the whole lot of the articles or report the IP editor to WP:AIV or SPI. I think we may need to request an WP:EDITFILTER on the user's edits until it expires. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After noticing that one of the IPs geolocated to "Gaithersburg, Maryland", that opened up another casefile. I've added the content to the SPI as you'll notice. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Bonjour
Do you like jam doughnuts or ones with sprinkles?

Please let me know immediately as I would like to send you some for all your hard work.

Your biggest fan,

Sophie Welsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiewelsh (talk • contribs) 21:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Amazing World of Gumball
The same type of things that earn Ed, Edd n, Eddy the label. Many of the jokes can be seen as a bit dark such as:

- The bloody pizza baby joke from "The Job"

- The joke from "The Picnic" featuring a worm that conveyed clear emotion getting eaten by a monster, and said monster getting eaten by a monster and so forth.

- The recent episode "The Recipe" where Gumball and Darwin continually get Anton killed. I can even draw South Park parallels with this one.

- The Virus who mourns over the death of all his friends and family and swears revenge on Gumball

- The premise of a balloon dating a cactus and frequently getting popped.

- The entire episode "The Voice".

- Darwin intentionally giving himself a disease from rats to try and trick a crowd into thinking he's poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RabidBadger1632 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi -- I had to figure out what you were talking about. I assume you are responding to my edit summary in this edit? WP:CAT is the page that explains how categories should be added.  It reads, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." That was not achieved in this case. Genre designations aren't to be applied per our personal interpretations. They should be based on sourced prose in the article. Genre describes the overall tone of the show, not one-time jokes, spooky episodes, things of that nature. For example, in order for comedy to work, writers must create dramatic tension in a story.  The Three Stooges might be in danger of getting caught with a man's wife, or might be on the run from gangsters, that doesn't, however, make The Three Stooges a drama or a mob film. When Bugs Bunny thwarts Dracula or Gossamer, the big red monster, that didn't make the series a horror even though it incorporated horror themes.  Wile E Coyote gets killed multiple times each episode, but that doesn't make it a black comedy. When Diff'rent Strokes dealt with issues like child molestation, or when James Evans died in Good Times, that didn't fundamentally change the show's genres. They are still sitcoms. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia might be a strong example of a black comedy, as it deals very frivolously with issues like rape and alcoholism and gun violence. Hope that helps explain stuff. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WHY against me and solution for MOS:BOLD fiasco?
Let's jump into a "fun" little discussion called Why Cyphoidbomb still continues to accuse me for all the blame. Okay firstly, to you and to all of you negative users, that still continu to fight over my inane behavior over the MOS:BOLD. Now FYI, I didn't create the whole MOS:BOLD fiasco they were like this several years ago, and secondly I don't understand why both you and woof decide to change your minds over this?

Now I'm not here going to start another war here, because their is no reason for it and we moved on already here. But, their is got to be another way using something else regarding with the MOS:BOLD that I've been constantly repeating a few days back. Please give me another chance I've had a rough struggle on Wikipedia due to certain users and their beliefs, and I love to edit out certain stuff. I promise I won't cause another edit war again.--50.171.11.116 (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Still continues to accuse [you] for all the blame"? I don't know what that means, and frankly, much of your comment above is confusing to me. You are responsible for reinstating unnecessary boldface in various articles, which a few editors have pointed out is neither useful nor acceptable. That you were involved in this is not in dispute. So if you feel "blame" as opposed to "taking responsibility", I don't know what to tell you. You repeatedly added formatting that contravenes established guidelines, and then after being told that it is inappropriate, and after being warned not to keep asserting your worldview, you did it again, then somehow convinced yourself that you're a victim. Deflecting responsibility by saying, "I didn't create the whole MOS:BOLD fiasco they were like this several years ago", is not a constructive response. Maybe MOS:BOLD hadn't yet been implemented?  Maybe the editors were inexperienced and they messed up?  Maybe they were idiots?  Who knows.  Anyhow, the active discussion is at Talk:Michelle Ruff, which is the appropriate forum for you to argue whether or not MOS:BOLD should be ignored in that article.  Wikipedia is a community project.  If you have difficulty collaborating with others, then Wikipedia is going to be a real headache for you.  It's not for everybody. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness sake's, move on already!--50.171.11.116 (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sake" is not possessive. And I don't know what "moving on" means to you, when consensus has already been established on the matter and you're the only one complaining. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You on AIV
 Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well! I never!  Thanks for looking out, OZ.  And thanks for saving the admins an unnecessary bother, although I'm morbidly curious what the boomerang backlash might have been... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI referrals from AIV
Sorry it's taken me a while to respond.

I understand how you feel. But this is also borne of experience reviewing AIV reports. I've seen too many (not yours, I admit) that say something like "obvious sock" and there's one or two edits to review. "Obvious sock" of who? SPI reports have to include an alleged sockmaster, after all. Sometimes I can figure it out from the edits. Usually not, and I pass.

I can do better with one that says something like "obvious sock of X". In that case, I'll consider it AIV material if it's pretty straightforward, like one or two edits from both the master and the sock that match, and if I get that info (gone light on the detail) in the report. But for the sort of cases with complicated evidence and multiple socks ... well, that's what SPI's for.

Or perhaps we need some page for sock reports too trivial for SPI but too complicated for AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for responding. I was hoping that you didn't take my "complaint" personally. I see that you didn't and I appreciate your open-mindedness to adjustment. Thank you for that. I've been through a lot of similarly frustrating AIV reports, but I do also understand your frustrations as an admin dealing with the tedium of AIV. Some of my own frustration comes from my failed RfA where I couldn't convince editors who'd never worked with me that I was reliable enough to carry the mop. That meant that instead of being able to handle this nonsense on my own, I was again required to submit the same L1, L2, L3, L4 warnings, then file toothless reports about vandals to AIV and hope that an admin familiar with my contributions would understand the quality of my report and respond accordingly. Anyhow, you and I are on the same side, so if you ever think to drop me a line with a question about a problematic AIV that I've filed, I assure you that I'll do my best to convince you of the problem, and explain the gravity as best I can. Though I'm not perfect, I think the quality of my sock reports and my instinct to spot potential socks is pretty solid. Thanks m'man. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

DC Asia New Logo
Hello, Im from and in the Philippines and we have the new logo. TNSD (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC) 
 * Great, but are you reading the content provided in the blue links that the reverting editor submitted? He suppressed the images for a reason. Check the edit history. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Passengerpigeon (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laura Marano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Vamps. 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) 08:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Overlink response
Even though I know that you watch over the List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters, I had no idea that you have the Regular Show pages under your watch when it came to the adding of those common links. The part with anyone who has initials as a first name has spaces in between their periods where we have to put a "|" to do a separate thing there like the other editors have done with names like JB Blanc, J.B. Smoove, and J.G. Quintel to name a few. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply from 11Mike2002
Okay, I understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11Mike2002 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Dora and Friends
Hi Can you help me to write the article ? Reagrds. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your help

CalcuttakingArjun (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>


 * Are you turning into this kitten? ;) -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha! Cute... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

List of oggy and the cockroaches episodes
Hello I am aware that you disagree with my changes to article 'List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes'.

The changes I've made must be mandatory to match the existing "Note" captions present in the article. Other old revisions of the article include the note features on the pilot episode, first appearance of Bob, etc

I would strongly recommend that you agree to the changes I've made to make the article marked as Good Article by Wikipedia. Even if you still disagree, I will try my best to rephrase and source the content in the future.

As an added measure, I am requesting a temporary full protection on this article to prevent any further edit wars. We will negotiate further information on my talk page tomorrow.

Yours sincerely

User: Raphael.concorde

Sun 23:44:45 August 24 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comments don't make sense to me. There is nothing mandatory about keeping trivia in an article to match the other trivia in the article, and articles evolve over time, so your statement that old revisions include notes has no bearing on where the article should be today, or tomorrow. And I will oppose any attempt to protect the article, if you do so without first participating in the active discussion on the article's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oggy episodes article negotiations
Hello

Thanks for your reply. I have decided to rephrase the changes I had made on the List of Oggy and the cockroaches episodes. The new changes will be saved and submitted in about 40 minutes time.

However, when I submit the new changes before 16:00, any further reverting or edit warring will render the article temporary or permanent full protection by Wikipedia. If the users involved in the situation disagree with my good faith changes may not have permission to edit the article for some time (i.e. 7-15 days) if I secure and protect the article temporary or possibly indefinitely.

Thank you for your cooperation

User: Raphael.concorde

15:14 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Until you successfully argue for the inclusion of the content on the article's talk page, any edit you make is temporary, and any attempt you make to subvert the bold, revert, discuss cycle by inappropriately seeking out page protection, could result in your account being sanctioned instead. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ranveer Singh
Thanks for Reading, I have analysed many of wikis articles and I find contradictions among related articles, like if you search Sindhi people page, you shall find people added in the list E.g Ranveer Singh Bhavnani, right,but when you ope his page you wont find any sort of link to the previous article how illogical is that, even thou Bhavnani is Sindhi Caste/Surname you dont show any link in both, Its called Illogical Facted Articles, there are many other facts that are not written in it,

ThankyouKash201313 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are saying. If you have a reliable source that says Ranveer Singh is a member of the Sindhi people, then you can try to include that information along with the source. Without the source, the content cannot be included. If another article lists him as a member of that group, but there is no source provided, it should be removed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Broadchurch article and spoilers
You reverted an edit I'd made to the Broadchurch article. The edit removed a spoiler statement from the character descriptions. That statement clearly identifies the murderer in a story that is, essentially, a murder mystery.

I understand the general Wikipedia policy on spoilers and spoiler alerts, but an exception needs to be made here for the benefit of the article and all readers. Here's why: The spoiler is completely unnecessary and out-of-place in the character descriptions. One would expect to find spoilers in extended plot descriptions or even episode summaries but not in the character descriptions. The Wikipedia article on spoilers even says, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." I interpret that to mean that editors ought to exercise some minimum amount of common sense and judgement when making these decisions.

TL;DR? Let's remove the spoiler from the character description and allow it remain in the episode description for the final episode. It does no one a service to tell them the culprit in the character list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.151.143.1 (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for reaching out to me. I understand your perspective, but this has previously been discussed on the article's talk page, and I think there is an encyclopedic value to describing the character as a murderer if he is in fact depicted as a murderer, especially if that season has ended. Darth Vader, for example, is described in the lead of his article as Luke Skywalker's father, which is intended to be a heavy dramatic reveal. Though I naturally anticipate a counter-argument that it is common knowledge that Darth Vader is Luke's pappy, anybody born under a rock would find it to be a spoiler. When I was catching up on my Breaking Bad episodes, I steered FAAAAR clear of its article, to avoid any bit of info that would have spoilt my fun. I don't think an encyclopedia is an appropriate place to go if you don't want to know something. That said, you are free to bring this up again on the article's talk page, where I think it is more appropriate. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why did you cancel my editing?
Blog which I linked survey rating data channels Israeli children for a while now, and is a trusted source. So why it is necessary another source?

By the way, my English is not good because I use Google Translate now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by נהוראיי מבורך כחלון (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Shalom! Blogs are typically not considered reliable sources, because there usually is no clear editorial policy (rules about how facts are checked, etc.) It is preferable that we included reputable mainstream sources, like newspapers, magazines, or the websites of these newspapers and magazines. The content you added is still in the article, I just think there should be a better source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Shalom! What is reliable? Blog running since June and before that at another end of the article written attendances attributed. I do not understand what is here is not reliable, Israel This is the only blog that measures children's TV ratings that have relied upon. נהוראיי מבורך כחלון (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The qualities that make a site reliable are described at WP:RS. Since anybody can start a blog, anybody can have an opinion, and anybody can print whatever they want to print. The Wikipedia community doesn't equate the opinions or the research of a layperson, with the opinions and research of a professional in the field. If someone writes for a newspaper, there is a presumption that the newspaper has stringent journalistic standards, and performs adequate fact-checking. There is generally no such presumption that this journalistic standard is performed by blog writers. (See also: WP:USERGENERATED) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

False accusation of copy/pasting
Just to let you know, I am trying my best to put edits into my own words. You can't accuse me of copy/pasting when I haven't been. Also, stop asking me to put sourced resources on here. I know things need to be sourced but with Strange Hill High, I added an unsourced edit to a Christmas special. A Christmas special has been confirmed. Please stop accusing me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartman810 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, - ANI is the appropriate place for you to make these statements. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Oggy_and_the_Cockroaches_episodes
Hello

Sorry I haven't responded due to a WiFi connection error. The message I previously sent to your talk page about my changes were later incorrect- after I sent the message, I checked the article only to discover someone has already replaced the information I've made back into the article. Ignore the warning 'do not revert' in my previous message so you can edit the article with any relevant information you want as long as it is not a complete revert attempt. In the message I've sent on August 24th, I've may have added too many warnings and I apologize if I may have sounded aggressive.

Take care

User:Raphael.concorde

20:56 August 29th 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael.concorde (talk • contribs)
 * I don't know what you would consider a "complete revert attempt", so I'm not going to bother to guess. I intend to remove trivia including, but not limited to the content that I've addressed on the article's talk page, for the reasons I've explained on the article's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A Fairly Odd Summer
Hey can you please help me with the Fairly Odd Summer page I did everything now all I need is the plot cause it is taking forever please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentsaul21 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Silentsaul21 (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I haven't seen the movie, so it would be difficult for me to add content. If you're having difficulty, keep it simple. You don't need to write every aspect of what happened in the movie, only the most important parts. I've tried to clean up a few sentences, but I'm still not certain what the movie is about. Timmy, the fairies, and a few others go to Hawaii, and what happens? I think the focus should be on the events that take place in Hawaii, as that's when the story really gets started. No? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've thought you seen the movie I'll ask someone else who has.Silentsaul21 (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you need help refining the prose, I'm happy to help.Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Catdog
Shout factory has confirmed when catdog comes out the complete series it is October 14 2014 (Kcano09 (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC))
 * If you have a link to the confirmation, feel free to add a reference. At the very least, it should be in this format: but for more elegant citations, please watch the video at WP:REFB. However, the content should not be added without a source. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Team Umizoomi
Team Umizoomi is canceled. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.75.206 (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The source (which is not a very strong source, to say the least) says that the series wasn't picked up for a new season. Though that does imply there won't be another season in the forseeable future, and while it does imply that the network has given up on the project, 1) the subject doesn't use the word "canceled" 2) cancellations typically occur while a show is still on the air. So I don't dispute that the series has ended, I dispute the misuse of the word "canceled". Find a source that mentions "canceled" and you can put it back. Until then, the source wasn't picked up, and that should mark the natural end of the series. Problems? Take it up with WikiProject Television. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wonder Pets!
The show's actual title on television guides is "Wonder Pets!" with an exclamation mark. I understand some logos include stylized ways of spelling the title, like you mentioned earlier, but an exclamation mark is a character necessary for the spelling. Many other TV show pages are spelled with exclamation marks, such as Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! and Go, Diego, Go!, and Wonder Pets! is one I feel needs to be moved. Momsandy (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC) I supported the move, but the matter of the "The" still needs to be sorted out, since it appears in reliable sources. I don't think that the lack of The in tv guides necessarily counts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:Chowder
At first, is not an edited site, second, it is commonly known in various sources that said character is a cat/bear/rabbit and this was used originally to describe him in earlier edits of the page later, indicating him as such. He isn't described as only being a cat but as a mix of these three species. (N0n3up (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Do you not see the "Edit" link right next to Show Summary? If TV.com users can click that link and change the text, then it is not a reliable source. My objection isn't to the content--maybe it is a cat/rabbit/bear--I don't know. My chief objection has to do with your lack of reliable sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And I ask the same question, where does it state that he is a cat? Apart from the fact that Chowder looks nothing like a cat, it doesn't say anywhere that he is solely a cat. In the earlier versions of the page states that Chowder is a mix of said creatures and this statement has been widely stated in various places. I checked in Cartoon Network website, the place where the show was originally aired, yet no description of him being a cat is mentioned, so it comes to two ways. You reverted my edit because it lacks sources, and the same can be said about your statement. I only went to the most mentioned description of Chowder which comes closer to the truth, so if you have a good backed reason of denying such description, please do so. (N0n3up (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC))
 * With 1 minute of research I was able to find the content that you found so difficult to source adequately. It appeared on the second page of Google search results. In the future, please try to use better sources, which means you may actually have to check beyond the first page of Google results. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats good. And in you don't mind, would you be able to post it in my talk page? Thanks (N0n3up (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Never mind, found the link. (N0n3up (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC))

Trump's Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City
I am sorry if you feel that my edit was incorrect, however an article dated from Philly.com indicated that the above casino did indeed file for bankruptcy in bankruptcy court on September 10, 2014. Trump Entertainment was also given nine weeks to restructure or close down on November 13, 2014, according to same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.224.108 (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC) http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20140911_Judge_OKs_Trump_Entertainment_to_continue_operations.html It seems that AC has really fallen on very hard times in the past two weeks...
 * Had that article been properly linked, or even mentioned in your edit summary, there would not have been a problem. The problem, as explained was the lack of references. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bolded Names
You said that the character names for the Rescue Heroes (TV series) article weren't supposed to be bolded. However, in the articles for Barney & Friends, Rookie Blue, and List of Sailor Moon characters, all of the character names are bolded. Why is this? What is the difference? I read the page you posted, but it is not making sense to me, given thata character names are bolded for all of these other articles. 142.177.147.198 (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Bolding should be okay for glossary-formatted character listings, but not in filmographies for an actor's characters. Their special powers should not be bolded though. For Rescue Heroes, the main characters can be bolded, but not that bullet list of secondary characters, which is more like guest cast given their minor descriptions. If they are recurring characters that deserve a mention more than a phrase then consider remaking it into a recurring characters list with more detail and then the bolding would be fine. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in at Manual of Style for Television that encourages boldface in character listings, Ang. The extra formatting isn't necessary and contravenes MOS:BOLD which allows for the use of bold in specific cases, which it lists. TV characters isn't on their list. If the characters have bullet points, which they do, that should be enough to differentiate one from the other. IP 142, though I understand your perspective, and can see why you would draw such a conclusion, the fact is that just because other articles misuse boldface doesn't mean that all similar articles should misuse boldface. Instead, they should probably be changed to adhere with the general Manual of Style. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, that would apply for Rescue Heroes and Rookie Blue, but I'll state that boldface is okay for the Sailor Moon article since MOS:ANIME allows for it. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Should the characters listed for Barney & Friends (Barney, Baby Bop, B.J., and Riff) be bolded then? I'm just curious since I noticed that they were bolded in that article, as well as the other examples that I gave. 47.55.234.102 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Help re Andrew Johnson

 * Hi again, I note the same IP address has further reverted your reversion, with some rather "sarcastic" comments. :P

Regards. Eagleash (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

TV Show Cast Edits
Hi Cyphoidbomb. It is Avenger2015. I am really sorry about making unsourced edits on different pages. Is there a way I can make those edits so that they can stay there? Do you think you could give me some advice on those edits, specifically the Generator Rex page? Thanks, bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenger2015 (talk • contribs)

Sorry!
I didn't know about this "edit warring" thing, but it was only one editor and I should have researched the continuous edit reverting first. Won't happen again, I promise! Momsandy (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Happy to help! Thanks for the acknowledgment, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Impersonation account
FYI: simple:Special:Contributions/Cyphoidbomber - I've globally locked the account. Trijnstel talk 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, my public. Thanks Trijnstel! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Help with a vandal
There is a vandal in the site who's using the IP 103.14.60.77 and is messing up all the Jewelpet-related articles and such. Please do something, I already reverted some things on what he did!--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

American Dad!
I must admit to not completely understanding all of the kerfuffle with American Dad!, but I am of the impression that the discussion titled "Vote to KEEP or CHANGE American Dad's Episode Guide" is about the 3 recently aired episodes. Spongey253 has just completely reorganised EVERY season article, claiming that "Four of us over at the AD talk page pretty much agreed on switching to the fewer-number season" as justification. However, I don't see any discussion of earlier seasons. Am I correct? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey m'man, from what I gather (although it has been painful since Spongey's original post was very difficult to understand) this group of users believes that the season ordering for American Dad has been questionable since the beginning (I guess because there were only 7 eps? Sounds like a mid-season replacement to me. Three's Company had a short S1). There have been conflicting reports from various reliable sources about which episodes belong to which seasons. The series is being dropped from Fox, and new eps are slated to appear on TBS sometime in October. Some Fox sources say there are 10 seasons, some say there are 11. Depending on who you choose to believe, this means there is either "one less season" or "one more season". (This is the terminology the kids are using). Spongey and his crew prefer the "one less season" and they claim they can support it with sources, although I believe they're just finding sources (like iTunes) that supports their worldview. I don't think iTunes should be used as a ref here. This press release from TBS says that TBS is picking up S11 of the series, however this source only shows 9 seasons in the past, which suggests there are only 10 seasons.


 * My instincts tell me that there might be some cliquishness, POV and WP:OR issues here, which concerns me. I first got involved because I didn't care for the 'let's vote on which version of the facts we want' attitude. My "support" for their reordering is contingent on adequate sourcing and a clear explanation in the prose for any reader who might be confused. I don't think they should rush into anything until more facts are in. Another user proposed that they stop using seasons altogether and just use date ranges. That doesn't seem so wacky if there's going to be a perpetual confusion about this series. I don't know where those straggler three episodes belong. Their production codes (assuming they are accurate) seem consistent with the preceding season. Anyhow, if you have any ideas about this, I don't mind changing my mind. I think I may withdraw my support anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Any change to the episode numbering certainly requires support with reliable sources, which I've told Spongey. The production codes don't seem to help. TV Guide lists 11 seasons, with the recent episodes being season 11, and the press release lists "Roger Passes the Bar"/"A Boy Named Michael" as the season premiere. Fortunately, the Futon Critic still lists all previous press releases so it might be easy to work out when each season started but the air dates do seem to support 11 seasons to date, based on the conventional US seasons. That said, the press release for "Bullocks to Stan" doesn't show it as the season 2 premiere (and it has a season 1 code), while the press release for "Camp Refoogee" does show that as a season premiere and, from the code, would seem to be the s2 premiere. The press release for "The Vacation Goo" shows it as a season premiere, even though it has what appears to be a season 2 code. And so on. Deeper investigation is needed, as not everything is as it seems. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Toonami
I'm sorry to say this, but Sym-Bionic Titan is being written off by Cartoon Network. It's not going to air on Toonami again. Beware the Batman is being written off too, but at least that'll finish in a marathon this weekend. Check their Tumblr page if you don't believe me: http://toonami.tumblr.com/post/98164760488/good-news-bad-news-batman-fans I'm disappointed too, but that's just the way it is. Matty-chan (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have nothing invested emotionally in Sym-Bionic Titan or any other series on that list. Your edit was reverted because it was unsourced, and the tone of the content you submitted "written off" is not suitable for an encyclopedia, and there was no context to explain what it even means. Not picked up again? It reduces their tax liability? It was abandoned on the doorstep of a fire station? Based on the source you have just now provided, a more appropriate explanation would have been that the series would no longer be shown. "Written off", though is meaningless without appropriate context, and the reference doesn't even provide that context, stating vaguely, "Beware the Batman and Sym-bionic Titan are being 'written off,' financially, as of now." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I used that note to update the schedule. I have no clue what that jargonistic "written off" means either ;) -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are ON IT, Angus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I kinda thought everyone on the Internet who watches Toonami knew about that Tumblr page and had seen it already ^^;; In fact, I was surprised that I was the first to point out that edit, since I usually get beaten to schedule edits (Beware the Batman is gone after this week and Hellsing is pre-empted for the marathon and airs earlier the next week). As for "being written off", I think it is the tax thing. Awhile ago on that Tumblr, someone asked about the possibility of Megas XLR (as well as IGPX, for the time being) being on Toonami, and Jason DeMarco mentioned or explained that both series (how they got IGPX back, I'll never know or I missed) were "part of a tax write-off" from Cartoon Network and could not air again with suffering major fees from the IRS. I'll have to dig that up someday. However, as per the manual of style on Wikipedia, I'll just leave it the way it is. Matty-chan (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A respectable choice, and appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
I didn't mean to upset anyone by reorganizing the page, it's just that some users are making the discussion hard to read by posting over one comment each, each in a different section...do you know anyone who is specifically trained to organize talk pages? It's getting to be cluttered. Momsandy (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to reorganize the talk page. That's a normal-looking discussion, to me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, if that's how they normally look, then it's okay. I just wasn't sure that anything could be read or understood well with all of the same users' messages placed in between others'. Thanks! Momsandy (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)