User talk:EauZenCashHaveIt

The River and Neflix original programming
If The River should be added to Template:Netflix then all of the shows listed in the tables List of original programs distributed by Netflix, List of original programs distributed by Netflix and List of original programs distributed by Netflix should be. BBC One in the UK is the original network for The River, as that is the network to first show it. You would not, I assume, argue that The 100 (TV series) should be added to the "Netflix original programming" table because Netflix is the original broadcaster in Canada. That is because The CW is the original broadcaster of it in it's country of origin. It is the same with the River because BBC One is the original broadcaster in that show's country of origin. How can The River be a Netflix Original when it aired elsewhere a month before it was added to Netflix? 12bigbrother12 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I replied on the article talk page. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Template:Netflix. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you correctly followed the WP:BRD process and didn't ignore other editors or consensus, there wouldn't be the necessity to revert you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So... according to you, it's OK to edit war as long as you're right. Got it. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Surreal comedy
Hey there Eau, re: this revert, the threshold for inclusion of a cat per WP:CAT, is that there has to be an obvious reason why a category is added to an article. Whether there are sources that support "surreal comedy" or not, there's nothing obvious about that addition, because there's no sourced prose that calls the show "surreal". This makes it extraordinarily difficult for wikignomes like myself to determine whether a cat addition is a sound one, or just someone venting their POV. Cat vandalism is prolific, and people often continue genre-warring in cats, perhaps to get satisfaction when they can't make their preferred genre stick in an article. As a real-world example, someone has been going around to various kids' TV articles over the last year or so trying to make "anime-influenced animation" stick as a category, when none of the articles mention any sort of anime-influence. One such article is Teen Titans (TV series). I'll hold off on reverting the cat addition, but would appreciate if you would add at least a single sourced sentence based on the refs that you found, that supports "surreal comedy", otherwise, it should be removed. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The obvious reason is knowing the show. I am currently short on time, I hope what I added is satisfactory for now. Cheers. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 10:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Redundant "known as (real name)"
EauZenCashHaveIt, according to Manual of Style/Biographies, "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence (including middle names, if known, or middle initials). Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version."

This means if the article's subject is not better/professionally known by a stage name/pseudonym/monomym, or if the subject is not going by what was initially his/her middle name at birth, then you should not insert "known as (first name, last name only)" to a lead sentence/section of an article, because the article already starts with (first name, middle name(s), last name). For example:

"Allison Brooks Janney (born November 19, 1959) is an American actress."

This is how the article's lead sentence should be rendered as, regardless of what the article's subject is billed as in her film and television projects. Notice that I would not add ", known as Allison Janney," to the lead sentence, after her birthdate, just because that is what she is billed as, because that would be considered redundant, and therefore, unnecessary since that is her real name, and her first and last names are exactly the same in each instance either way.

Anyway, while I do appreciate your addition of some info to the Melissa Rauch article, you did not have to add ", known as Melissa Rauch," to the article's lead sentence in your first edit on 29 January 2016. I removed it last Friday, but you reverted it because, per the edit summary, "She is never billed as Melissa Ivy Rauch.". The article's lead sentence is going to start with the complete version alone regardless of what Melissa (Ivy) Rauch is billed as in her projects. For this reason, if you were to insert ", known as Melissa Rauch," back into the article again after I have already removed it, you would risk starting an edit war. Jim856796 (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:AN/I notification
You are mentioned at WP:AN/I Collect (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Henry Gibson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 05:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * check again. Next time, please refrain from wrongfully labeling edits as vandalism, as it can be interpreted as a personal attack. Thanks. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 05:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Metallica. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you.  Rob van  vee  15:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * please explain what you mean by "unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles". EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 15:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (you have involved in this). EauZenCashHaveIt, as I said in my edit summery, please read wp:mos and perhaps this too. You will see in the 2nd one, they specifically say citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. Just adding a URL is not good enough in a featured article where its format is inconsistent with other reference styles. This is a handy tool that you may want to check out! Also, nothing is mentioned in the citation to suggest Metallica are from anywhere, so be sure to get your facts straight before you revert a featured article back to a poorly referenced state. Thanks.  Rob van  vee  16:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I agree that I should have watched the video. My main problem is with the baby/bathwater here - if someone supplies as little as a URL, be a good sport and complete the ref, or tag for improvement. As I wrote in the edit summary, it's still better than nothing at all. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 16:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

really??
The Social Security death database is a valid link - and the fact is simple Henry Gibson was his legal name on government records. You seem to \think this is some sort of game but Wikipedia is supposed to do its damndest to be accurate, and your edit is quite apparently not done out of any desire for accuracy where the government sources presented through a secondary source are clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

stop the effing attacks in section titles on talk pages please
Talk_page_guidelines is clear.


 *  Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines.

Clear? Collect (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , you already took this to AN/I, unsuccessfully. What you keep removing (in complete violation of WP:TPO) is not an attack. I advise you to drop it. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Drop it or what? Cheers.  The wording of the talk page guidelines is quite clear.  Collect (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am the second editor to ask you: is that a threat? I linked to a guideline. The wording in it, as well as TPO, is quite clear too. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Elisabeth Shue
I came across your BLPN post and started a new discussion on the article's talk page. Feel free to address your concerns with the page's current image there. Look forward to hearing from you! Meatsgains (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Departed. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Mrs Doubtfire
Why do you keep editing the article back to the Scottish accented version? I understand there is an old BBC article that talks about the accent being Scottish, but how do you explain the character of Mrs Doubtfire herself saying multiple times she is from England? Also, if you research a Newcastle accent you will see that is in fact the accent of Mrs Doubtfire. It may sound Scottish to non British ears but it is in fact a northern English accent. And lastly, despite there being an argument as to whether the accent is English or Scottish, saying it is a British accent covers both of those accents. Even if it was a Scottish accent, saying it is a British accent would still be correct as Scotland is part of the UK. I believe in this matter you are perhaps being stubborn and not reaching compromise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.157.8.123 (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This was discussed before and a consensus was reached. If you wish to change that, please do so via discussion on the article's talk page, not by ignoring the hidden note that explicitly instructs us to do as I just told you. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Breaking Bad
It's amusing that you point to a page that advocates the "hierarchy" of argument quality, with "namecalling" at the very bottom of the hierarchy... and you do so with an edit summary referring to others as "ninjas". How about you WP:FOC instead? Jeh (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alias ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_Curb_Your_Enthusiasm_episodes check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_Curb_Your_Enthusiasm_episodes?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)