User talk:Ecpiandy/2012/April

Unblock

 * What do you plan on doing if I unblock you? If I unblocked you with the agreement that you are to spend the next 30 days editing, with no creation of articles, redirects, lists, or templates, would you abide by it?&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Tate Brandley Stockwell 20:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

TBrandley; you have to realize that you are skating on VERY thin ice here. You had better abide by your agreement that was made here. If you create ANY articles, redirects, lists, or templates before May 1 2012 there will be several admins that will not hesitate in placing an indef block on you and this time nobody would be willing to unblock on something as simple as the promise you made here. You've been given a very rare third chance; don't screw it up! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that, i can upload files because it wasn't mention it right? Tate Brandley Stockwell 22:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Files are fine. But not too many otherwise it could be seen as an attempt to game the system! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TBrandley is honoring the letter of the agreement. By trying to close the loophole, I created a new one. I won't reinstate the block based on it, but I am watching closely.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TBrandley... you are approaching the "Too many" rather rapidly here! I would suggest that you STOP uploading files for at least the next week! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also STRONGLY suggest that you NOT try to push the boundaries like this... It becomes too easy to overstep them and find yourself "Locked up with the key thrown away"! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And yet, despite two chances and all the advice about not pushing limits, we get this edit at Touch (2012 TV series). If I can still read with reasonable comprehension, the terms of the unblock included no lists, yet off he goes within minutes of being unblocked, and adds an irrelevant list of Canadian ratings to the article on an American TV show. I'm all for second chances and forgiveness, but this editor simply isn't able to abide by the simple terms of his own unblock agreement, no matter how many times he promises to. --Drmargi (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is most certainly a violation of the unblock agreement. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 04:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That edit doesn't violate his unblock agreement. It would get immediately overturned if I blocked for it. Calm down a bit: I unblocked with a specific set of conditions, and TBrandley is living within them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 10:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Calm down? Everyone here seems perfectly calm, and I have no bone to pick with anyone here.  That said, does your unblock agreement, dated yesterday, not say "If I unblocked you with the agreement that you are to spend the next 30 days editing, with no creation of articles, redirects, lists, or templates, would you abide by it?" to which the TBrandley replies, "Yes."?  How, then, is TBrandley hopping over to Touch minutes later to create an irrelevant list of Canadian ratings for an American show not a violation?  I came to this talk page to leave him a message about not adding superfluous lists of statistics on the article, found this, and felt it was appropriate to comment here, given the edit of concern seemed to be a pretty clear-cut violation of the block agreement.  This is an editor with whom I'm not terribly familiar, but I have noticed a couple ANI's and his tendency to add superfluous content to the project, much of which is deleted quickly, and I have no particular investment in his being blocked.  My only concern is the pattern of saying "I won't do it again" followed by fairly speedy violations that's readily apparent to fresh eyes, and an edit that clearly is the latest of a long line of inappropriate edits of concern to more than one admin.  --Drmargi (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the unblock agreement has to do with creation of any new articles, lists, templates, etc., and not on the addition of material to existing articles. Maybe that should be clarified. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has my intention correct: the primary source of TBrandley's editing difficulties has been the constant creation of new things, not the additions to articles, so that is what his unblock restrictions focus on. That doesn't mean that I am giving automatic blessing to his additions to existing articles: editors should feel free to revert or edit those additions as they see fit. There's a huge gap between "won't block over" and "think is perfect".&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Animation Domination
Your logo has been removed and should not be readded; Logopedia should never be used as a logo source, especially as they have no regards to respect of copyright that I know of and their site's actual page for the image has no source for it.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Animation Domination title card.jpeg


A tag has been placed on File:Animation Domination title card.jpeg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

sourced to Logopedia, which fails to disclaim where they acquired the image in the first place, so no proper following of copyright disclaiming can be done for this image

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Fox Studios Australia logo.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Fox Studios Australia logo.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

sourced to Logopedia, which fails to disclaim where they acquired the image in the first place, so no proper following of copyright disclaiming can be done for this image

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Skating too close to the edge
Consider your prohibition on creating redirects to include creating hatnotes directing readers to different articles. This edit, where you created a television episode hat note that functions like a soft redirect is another example of the extremely bad judgment that you show. What benefit is it to direct the reader of an article about the proposition "2+2=5" to a television episode titled "1+1=3"?

Poor judgment is the underlying problem here, and you really have to work on it. You have this enormous pile of warnings, messages from editors encouraging me to block you again, and why? Because you create things without any restraint. Slow down. Think. Remember that a trivial, tiny, miniscule percentage of our readers will ever look up a television episode by title.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

1channel.ch
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to 1channel.ch. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--74.34.68.186 (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Safety in Numbers
Please read WP:DAB; piping is not allowed beyond technical exceptions, and most people will just go to Touch (2012 TV series) to get an episode description for now because of the series' newness thus your edit has been reverted.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory characters
Would you please regard at least one page about acceptable sources? Just one, please? Even to humor me, I'll take it. You don't source to Facebook pages. Not to Wikipedia articles. Certainly not to UrbanDictionary, which could make Bazinga some kind of dirty sexual position if they wanted to because it's a user-generated content site with few controls to stop anyone from making something up. Here's what I want you to read: Verifiability. Learn it. Read it. Respect it. And stop sourcing to things that pretty much exist to create urban legends or free advertising here. Thank you.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TBrandley; need I remind you that you are on EXTREMELY thin ice here! You should have known by now that user generated content such as Urban Dictionary is never accepted here except under VERY RARE circumstances! That stunt you pulled at 2+2=5 didn't help either! The ice is 1nm away from cracking. Tread carefully lest that last nm melt away too! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How many more chances are you gonna give him? He has not responded nor acknowledged that he is very close to being blocked AGAIN. Clearly this user has no respect for Wikipedia's rules and guidelines  Jay Jay Talk to me 17:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not in charge of that so I have no real idea. It's up to the admins to make the decision to block. Kww seems to be the most active admin RE: this person so why not ask them? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You will have to persuade me that TBrandley is being actually disruptive: edit-warring, repeatedly making the same class of edit despite a community consensus that they are inappropriate, etc. I can't block him for being a bad editor unless it gets beyond this level of disharmony.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your move to wikiquote
While Wikiquote and Wikipedia are separate and as such sanctions on one do not apply on the other; Your actions on wikiquote such as creating pages and redirects about the SAME things that got you into trouble over here can cause you to be blocked here again and possibly even be blocked there too! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They may get him in trouble over there, but I can only consider his actions on Wikipedia.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The page I created on the wikiquote, Touch (TV series), was translated from the Italian Wikiquote to the English Wikiquote -- Tate Brandley Stockwell 23:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop translating things with Google Translate on any wiki. You had major problems on other wikis with badly translated articles from en using GT, as I noted in your Request for Comment; items like that require someone versed in their native language to deal with and I don't see anywhere that you are versed in Italian, and using a translation from another wiki is no excuse for creating an poorly written article. Also, let's wait until Touch actually gets a second season before we begin to quote it; we are not under any deadline to create content here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fox and Animation Domination images
What did I tell you on Tuesday about sourcing images? That they must list where they came from. Please follow our fair use guildelines. Your logo has again been removed because it doesn't tell us where it's from and is certainly not meeting fair use guidelines, which list that corporate images should be no larger than 500 pixels, and it would be very advisable to find an image that does not contain any animated characters. The first Fox logo from the Fox article has also been removed as clearly a violation of the rules of Commons; no corporate logos and incorrect copyright, and the second Fox logo is gone because it adds nothing to the article and we've had this discussion years ago that articles should not have galleries unless there's a good reason. Also, the searchlight element clearly makes it a copyrighted image, not public domain.


 * Please read WP:FAIRUSE.
 * Please read LICENSING; only free images are allowed there.

Thank you.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * List of programs broadcast by Global (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to The Firm, Ringer, Glee and The Good Wife

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:TV network logos
Don't change things in items under deletion unless it involves vandalism or adding a source to something. Your edit has been reverted here. Thank you.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Animation Domination copy-paste move...
I have reverted this. Page histories must be maintained, and you have not done this move correctly (as you have been warned with previous copy-paste moves), and most of all, one vote doesn't mean a consensus by any means. Please wait for an administrator and plenty of consensus before making this move. Thank you.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV is not a reliable source for episode information used in TV articles. Please be careful to use appropriate media such as TV Guide when sourcing information about TV series. --Drmargi (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Kathy Cox
Please, before you edit, read an article before you make changes. It's pretty darned obvious that this edit was the result of not paying attention, and to many editors can be considered disruptive editing.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kathy Cox, you may be blocked from editing. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Simpsons
Hi. I have removed the broadcast section you added. It was incomplete and unproperly sourced, but mainly if it was complete it would be a horribly long trivial mess that doesn't belong here. A broadcast section is good possible addition, but it would be in prose and similar to that in Cold Feet, for example. Gran2 21:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. When you recently edited Don't Trust the B in Apartment 23, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rogers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced episode summaries
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Missing (TV series). Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Once an unsourced summary is reverted, the worst move you can make is revert again; that will simply get you warned and possibly blocked for edit warring. --Drmargi (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced titles
Please do not add "Tales of the Red Thread" or any other alternative title for the Pilot of Touch (2012 TV series) without a reliable source, as you have done more than once. There is a discussion of the correct title on the show's talk page. Please avoid an edit war by contributing to the discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)