User talk:Davejohnsan/Archive 11

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries on episode number corrections
I just wanted to take a moment to say how inspired I am by the wording I've observed you using when reverting changes to incorrect episode number changes of late. How ever did you come up with such an eloquent turn of phrase? :p DonIago (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I became jaded about two months ago. :) Davejohnsan (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh my. I hope it wasn't because somebody told you that Santa Claus isn't real! DonIago (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Translation notification: Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Toolkit/Discussion Coordinator Role
Hello Davejohnsan,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to Spanish on Meta. The page Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Toolkit/Discussion Coordinator Role is available for translation. You can translate it here:
 * translate to Spanish

The priority of this page is medium.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Meta to function as a truly multilingual community.

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Meta translation coordinators&lrm;, 23:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Translation notification: Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Process/Briefing
Hello Davejohnsan,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to Spanish on Meta. The page Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Process/Briefing is available for translation. You can translate it here:
 * translate to Spanish

The priority of this page is medium.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Meta to function as a truly multilingual community.

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Meta translation coordinators&lrm;, 22:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sheriff Callie's Wild West
How in the world is what I posted on the Sheriff Callie's Wild West page as far as the cancellation "not definitive proof"? The item that I posted is from Holly Huckins, who is the show's creator. How much more definitive is necessary? ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I wrote in the edit summary of the revert - which, in hindsight, I should have left alone for a bit - it's not definitive proof because she doesn't explicitly mention that the series isn't returning. She wrote that tweet at the end of the season and only said it was "wrapping [up]" production without specifying whether it was just for the season or the entire series itself. Find me another source, then I'll believe it.Davejohnsan (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Simpsons IP Hopping
Hi. So I'm not sure if you even remember this (as I haven't seen you edit any Simpsons-related articles recently), but I've been recently doing some investigation into the "Futon Critic is ahead of its time" guy, and in my investigation your name has popped up in the reverts of this person quite a bit. I've found some pretty overwhelming vandalism evidence here (over 165+ separate vandalism edits from different IP ranges, and I haven't even finished yet), and all these IP ranges use very similar phrases and mannerisms in their editing, leading me to believe this is either a really obsessive sockpuppet or some vandal conspiracy here to attack the Simpsons-related pages. Once I finish with my investigation (should be a week at the most), I'm going to report this to WP:ANI and try to at least get these pages semi-protected for a long, long time (as about 90% of the IP edits done on these pages are from this same person/group) so this finally stops. I feel like this guy has slipped under the cracks for far too long now. But, to my point, since you seem to be at least somewhat aware of this guy's editing patterns, I was wondering if you would be interested in either contributing and/or giving your input when I make the report. Here's a link to what I've done so far. Thanks and let me know! Katniss  May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  22:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Please, Please, PLEASE don't block my range! I will stop for real this time. I only happen to be a long-time Simpsons fan and I admit I'm afraid of future predictions when it comes to TV. If you give me one last chance I'll never remove another source ever again, I will accept Futon Critic as the trustworthy source, and simply avoid reading the plot if I'm afraid to know what happels. I will stay off the whole list of episodes. And I absolutely positively undeniably mean it this time. Honest to God. Pinky swear. Absolute Native American's honor. -- 2602:306:37EB:47E0:145A:9A21:E3FD:E5C5 (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm not an admin so I can't "block" your range. Several other editors have expressed concerns about this editing pattern of yours so I've reported it to WP:ANI to let the administrators decide. If this was a short-term thing, I may have taken your word but this has gone on for three years now. You've been blocked twice on your 2602 range and plus once in your 205 range. You clearly know this not acceptable yet you continue doing it. Even if this was simply because you didn't want future information ruined for you, realize that you are affecting anyone in the world who views the encyclopedia based on your personal preference not to have information spoiled. If you're truly sorry and want another chance, I very much welcome and would like for you to give your input on the discussion here. Despite that I'm reporting you, I honestly have nothing against you or your IPs and don't wish any ill-will against you. Since you've obviously been looking through my contributions (as you knew to come here), I'm simply doing what I'm doing to protect the article and keep it accurate. You deleting and removing sources and information doesn't keep it accurate. I'm going to leave it up to the people at WP:ANI to decide what to do next, but if someday you do want to be a constructive editor and read more into the Wikipedia policies, I'd be glad to work with you and will have no grudges whatsoever. I simply want what is best for the Wikipedia community and have no anger or hatred for you at all. Thank you and may the odds be ever in your favor. Katniss   ♥  02:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just got back home today after attending the funeral of a close family member, and I've barely had time to catch up with IRL obligations. As soon as I can gather myself, I'll try to respond, but I'm just going to say right now I think you have a firm handle on this matter and I don't see how much there is for me to contribute, especially with the length of time that's passed since I've dealt with this particular editor. Davejohnsan (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, totally understandable. So sorry to hear about your relative! Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  14:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarence Nash
Got it - Burbank it is. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing my edit
I meant to add my voter turnout to the state of Alabama, not the presidential election as a whole. Thank you for removing the edit, I never would have noticed the problem. SirFuzzhead (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)SirFuzzhead
 * Thanks for not taking it personally. :) Davejohnsan (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Adam West
What's the issue? You linked me to Template: Marriage. Didn't see anything under the lines of "we don't include deaths as reason for a marriage ending". In fact there was another template option in the link you provided that I switched to so that the usage would be more correct. What's the issue you think you're pointing out? Rusted AutoParts 17:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Reason for marriage's end. d, d., or died includes d. within the parentheses if the marriage ended on the death of the spouse ."

From talk page: "If the marriage ends with the death of the article subject, there should be no need to repeat the death date, which will already be given in the infobox. If no other date is given for the marriage's end, it is safe to assume that the marriage lasted until the death of the article subject, and it is not necessary to duplicate the information. DrKay (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)"

I initially did not agree with this, but that's how it's been since November. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't been seeing that being put into effect anywhere TBH. Bill Paxton, John Hurt, Powers Boothe to name a few that have passed and the infobox reflected that their death was the reasoning for the marriage ending. So I don't see why West shouldn't have the same thing. The exact day isn't reflected, just the year. Rusted AutoParts 19:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are several examples (and in case you ask, no, not all of them were my doing; those are just the pages I'm tracking). This is still a fairly recent change, so it's not a surprise that you haven't seen it on very many articles. Please revert your edit. Davejohnsan (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd really like a link to the discussion/consensus on this. It's seems deceitful to leave out the fact the marriage ended due to a spouse's death. Rusted AutoParts 02:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Marriage#End Maybe contact DrKay for clarification on this issue? The discussion seems inconclusive but the template doc isn't. Davejohnsan (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still not really clear on this. Like you said the discussion wasn't conclusive and for all that I saw on the general template section there wasn't anything about not including the death date in the marriage section. Rusted AutoParts 02:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested messaging DrKay since he is the one who included the conditional clause with respect to the "died" field and argued that it was redundant to use the field when it is the subject's death that ended the marriage. Davejohnsan (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I will do so, but I'd advise enforcing something that is both unclear and/or not even decided to be enforced. Rusted AutoParts 03:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016
Hi. You removed my edits from the article with the name listed above on June 8th, 2017. What you thought was vandalism was actually corrections to Senator Bernie Sanders' name. When a person's last name ends with an S, it's not correct spelling to say Sanders's. Sanders' is the correct spelling.

Could you elaborate why you removed it? What I did to the article was clearly not vandalism. Daemonic15 (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To address the spelling issue, that's debatable. However, that had nothing to do with the reason I reverted your edit. Take another look at the entirety of the changes you made to the article. Davejohnsan (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I looked at the changes and realized my mistake. The changes I made to Donald Trump's name were accidental and were triggered by a browser extension. I wasn't aware that it had done that, and I apologize for that part of the edit. The browser extension has been removed. Daemonic15 (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Jim Halpert
If Jim went to the University of North Carolina and was born in 1978, how could he have started at Dunder Mifflin 2-3 years after graduating high school (rationally assuming he graduated high school in 1996 at the earliest)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.128.65 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Also, in the "Whazzup" scene Jim specifically says "Still love that, even after seven years." He may be referring to the fact that he still loves hearing the phrase in general seven years after he first saw the commercial, and not (necessarily) that he still loves hearing Michael Scott do an impression of the commercial after seven years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.128.65 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is all WP:OR. Incidentally, it is not an impossible scenario to start a full-time career while enrolled in college. Davejohnsan (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So he attended the University of North Carolina and started a career at the Scranton Branch of Dunder Mifflin? Maybe as a summer intern, although there is zero evidence of him having interned there. You are proposing that he started working at Dunder Mifflin in 1998 or 1999 based upon shaky, refutable evidence. I am proposing he may have started working at Dunder Mifflin in 2000, which, based upon his age and the fact that he attended college in North Carolina is at least EQUALLY plausible. Also, it would be just like Michael Scott to parody a movie in 2000 that was popular a year prior (eg, him continuing to use the phrase "Whazzzzup" seven years after the commercial which made the phrase popular came out). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.128.65 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing anything. I reverted your changes because they are based on original research that Wikipedia cannot accept. Whatever information you add, or change as the case may be, needs to be verified through a reliable, third-party source. I don't recall any episode in which it is referenced that Jim went to college in North Carolina. Incidentally, please do not remove referenced content without some explanation, especially when you are having a disagreement with another editor over something contained therein. Davejohnsan (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Die Hard 2 cast section and character descriptions
there's a edit war issue on Die Hard 2 about the cast section and character descriptions. A lot of film articles have character descriptions which I feel are very necessary, but that version of the cast section has been switched back and reverted by TheOldJacobite and Deloop82. The cast section should be switch back to it's original version for WP:STATUSQUO reasons until the argument on the article's talk page is set. More on the article's talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this pertains to me as I've never even edited that page before. Davejohnsan (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You saw the character descriptions in various TV show articles. What do you think film article's cast section should have? BattleshipMan (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you have me mistaken for someone else... Davejohnsan (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Committed suicide consensus discussion
In responce to your revert, I've started this discussion in case you're interested. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll respond later. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am being rejected to contribute to EMPIRE & STAR while giving cited sources.
I greatly appreciate that you're reviewing my contribution to both EMPIRE and STAR shows. I have sat for a few hours researching and reviewing the tv show and articles and video interviews maintaining what I am posting over and over. Lee Daniels did mention that the 2 shows share the same universe. and that a few episodes will be crossed over, Its not just one. It would be nice to send a message first before deleting material. If you would like you can check my cited sources. i have been doing these cited sources for a few hours. I do feel as if my contribution is being tested and not fairly accepted. I am not vandalizing pages nor being as an anonymous user to disrupt pages. I am actually humbly storing information from cited facts and sources online. I thank you for backup editing but to dismiss something that is there do kinda take away to what wikipedia is used for..contributors lending and sharing info with a collaborative environment. Thanks. Please allow me to respectfully contribute as many others are doing. Everyone gets a turn. All love here, thanks.
 * I'm sorry if it feels like I am shutting you out because you are an anonymous user, but that's not the case and that's not my intention. Just because you have information that can be backed up w/ sources doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion. In this particular instance, you are practically writing a chapter on ONE episode. That is WAY too much information and falls under WP:UNDUE. Your work is in need of major trimming and I just don't see how that can be done at this time. Further, just because two shows are said to be in the same universe or cross over doesn't make them related shows. The "Related series" line is for spinoffs, adaptations, and continuations (like All in the Family and Archie Bunker's Place or Family Guy and The Cleveland Show). Davejohnsan (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Family Guy lead, redux
Please see Talk:Family guy, about resolving questions not resolved in earlier discussions, at least one of which you participated in. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if it's not TV Guide
I think readers are entitled to know when certain episodes of TV shows were originally broadcast. --TVBuff90 (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is what you think more important than policy? Davejohnsan (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I just feel that because it's a free encyclopedia, editors are given the right to post any information they want. --TVBuff90 (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, in theory, you could post any information you want. But the thing is there is some information that isn't for Wikipedia. For example, I liked having the complete song list on the Grand Theft Auto series (each game had its own page with all the songs that were played on each of the in-game radio stations), but that list was taken down for being trivial. Same application goes to this. This is trivial information that only a very specific audience would even pay attention to. Unless you have some very compelling reason or policy/rule of thumb linked on Wikipedia, I don't see a reason to include the information you keep trying to post (time of day/day of week of each episode airing). For you to say things like, "I don't care if" or "I just feel/I just think" is not going to suffice. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandal Alert
Hey you're in charge of the "Family Guy" stuff here right? Please block this person (50.26.54.54)! He's vandalizing character pages with Cocamame facts that aren't true in the least. He's just making trouble. Fghsfijgig (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not in charge of the Family Guy "stuff" and I don't have any blocking powers as I am not an administrator. Reports of clear-cut vandalism should be directed to WP:AIV. Davejohnsan (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Translation notification: Meta:Babylon/Translators newsletter
Hello Davejohnsan,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to Spanish on Meta. The page Meta:Babylon/Translators newsletter is available for translation. You can translate it here:
 * translate to Spanish

This page explains a new service: to keep translators posted about messages that need a particular effort, we have created a new newsletter. that newsletter is distributed on wiki as a notification and does not requires an email to subscribe.

This message is both to kindly suggest you to translate the page explaining that new process, and also to invote you to subscribe to that newsletter. :)

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Meta to function as a truly multilingual community.

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Meta translation coordinators&lrm;, 18:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Richard Attenborough
Hi there ~ just a quick note to point out that when you to an older revision, while you did undo some unuseful edits, at least one was good; not to worry, as i've redone it, this is just a heads up to gently remind you to be careful with reversions. Happy days, LindsayHello 15:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

End of Marriage
DJ! What the h---? I have read the discussions at Template talk:Marriage and Template talk:Marriage, which both ended with no consensus found on the treatment of "including the end date if the subject dies". Read your notes on my revisions that you "undid", left wondering what the h--- you're doing to my work!

Then re-read everything. My apologies! I fully agree with your perspective that, since the Template currently says "if the marriage ended on the death of the spouse", that should be the DEFAULT until such time as a new consensus is well-and-truly determined! I will stop inserting the date that the article's subject died as the date, and reason, for end of the marriage. Cheers. Jmg38 (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Haha, it's not my perspective and it's also not something I agreed with when I first learned about it. I'm just sticking to whatever the current revision on the template documentation page is. I appreciate your message, and thanks for your help! Davejohnsan (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Morgan Tsvangirai
Hello, I am writing to tell you that I have reverted your edit again on the grounds that it needs to be clarified that his first wife died during the first marriage while his second marriage ended with his death. See Henry VIII to see the format which is being used on Tsvangirai's article.Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I am following the same format which is being used on Robert Mugabe's article, your changes implied that his second marriage did not end when he died. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious within the context of the infobox that the subject's first marriage ended with the death of his wife. His death date (2018), nine years after the death of his first wife, is clearly stated above the marriage field. The current instructions on Template:Marriage do state that the end field should have "d", "died", or "d." if the marriage ended on the death of the spouse, not "his death" or "her death:" you'll also notice there's also an omission of when the marriage ends on the death of the subject of the article. There is a ton of examples of this in practice listed here in my sandbox. Davejohnsan (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no choice but to warn you about edit warring since you seem unwilling to follow the same templates which have been used in the two examples listed above. You seem to have no quibbles with those two pages, so I don't expect you to keep bombarding Tsvangirai's page with incorrect information. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to take your attention to the 'end' section in syntax and parameters for the template which specifically allows for the customised text. Based on this, my formatting is also acceptable therefore does not to be changed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would argue that all of the people who supported the apparent consensus over at that talk template seem to think that marriage is some kind of supernatural bond which persists after death, legally that is not the case, therefore it should be clarified in the boxes for the individuals, that RfC should never have been opened in the first place as it has further muddied the waters and now it seems you are going to force me into opening another RfC in order to rectify the situation. Yes it does say the subjects death date in the article but by not having an end date on the marriage, if someone skips over it, then they may presume the subject is still alive, furthermore if the spouse goes on to remarry, then it looks like they are married to two people at once if people click around further confusing matters. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have started a new RfC on the template, it seems to me that people are enforcing option 2 despite option 1 clearly having much more support than option 2, which leads me to draw a conclusion that the person who closed the discussion did not add up the votes from either side. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC) (EDIT Apologies for not following your format and pinging you to begin with)

I have kept the template formatting (which you placed) on the article while the RfC is ongoing, hopefully the RfC should solve this issue. I would still be careful to make sure that you don't end up pulling yourself into an edit war, luckily that didn't happen this time. Apologies for misreading the template. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I'll apologize for being stubborn towards you. For what it's worth, I'll respect any changes made to Template:Marriage, but the way it is now is something I feel makes a lot of sense. Nonetheless, I'll wait on the RFC. Davejohnsan (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * According to this user's edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Marriage&diff=826840490&oldid=826840217], my formatting was acceptable to be used on the article. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said, actually. DrKay (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You did anyone can follow that link and you cannot deny it. Stop trying to argue for my point and against me at the same time. Don't contribute if you are going to cause conflicts. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood. As you yourself have admitted. DrKay (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you're twisting my words from when I initially misread the template. This discussion predates the RfC. Why are you causing undue tension? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not. I'm commenting on a request for comments. That is the purpose of a request for comments. DrKay (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No you agreed with me and are now beginning to backtrack on your own comments. This isn't about you commenting in the RfC its about how you have retracted your statement here. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've retracted no statement. My view in the new RfC is the same as it was in the October 2017 RfC. DrKay (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And as you can see from the October 2017 RfC, Option 1 had the most support out of the three options therefore the consensus was for option 1, User:Nohomersryan has made an error when closing the RfC claiming there was a 'no consensus' outcome. This RfC or the previous one were not about the end date as many people appear to have assumed. Rather it is about clarifying the death of the subject of the article. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)