User talk:Electricburst1996

You have been placed on the missing wikipedians list.
I highly doubt you'll read this since you left, but since you have not edited since November 4, 2016, I have placed you on the Missing wikipedians list. though you can remove yourself if you choose to comeback.

Cartoon Network: Hacking Incident
That incident is serious bro! Where else am I supposed to put it if it's not needed in the US feed? It would needed to be there no matter what, Look again at the article dude. You'll see that it talks about it in other locations, so why not the hacking incident? Tell where other Cartoon Network article to put it, and I will do so. Thanks, HappyINC.
 * Take this issue to the article's talk page. There's already a discussion set up if you want to weigh in. Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 15:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

''You cannot use DENY as a rationale for edit warring just because an editor from years ago held the same stance of some unrelated editors currently. This has been a month spanning dispute, we don’t need yet another editor jumping in on the reverting. Feel free to take part in the discussions but that is completely inappropriate application of DENY. Sergecross73  msg me  23:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC) ''
 * Let me add on to my case: back in December 2014, you removed the original entry, as shown here. Less than four years later, an IP editor reinstated it without explanation, as seen here. Another IP editor reinstated it again in the midst of repeated removals, saying "Was removed years ago without a shred of consensus - same nonsense now. Absolutely meets criteria for inclusion." In this discussion where you provided rationale for the removal, you brought up concerns about WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. The current version of this issue is happening because an editor somehow decided to re-open an old wound. Do you see the underlying issues here? Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, believe it or not, I changed my stance over the course of five years. That doesn’t somehow excuse your misapplication of DENY correct or excuse your repeated reverting. Sergecross73   msg me  00:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And exactly what made you change your stance? Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 00:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Years of maintaining the article, and seeing the variety of good and bogus entries be added or proposed for the article. I mean, look at my 2014 comment again. I was there literally asking for guidance on how people had previously policed the article. What about that makes you think I understood the scope and function of the article at that point? Also note I essentially have taken the stance of the one person who actually responded to me back then. Sergecross73   msg me  00:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we take this whole ordeal to WP:DRN? Granted, multiple editors are involved, but this dispute, just like the last time this happened, has been drawn out for months with no sign of reaching a consensus anytime soon. I think we should see what multiple admins have to say about the album's inclusion, and we should get as much input from as many editors as we can. This has dragged on for far too long. Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 00:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We just ran a month-plus spanning RFC that ended without resolution, so it’s not the type of thing that is going to find resolution at DRN. Also, Admin may have have the ability to block editors or protect/lock articles, but they don’t have any extra power in content disputes like this. (I should know - I am one.) Many Admin participated in the recent RFC anyways. Sergecross73   msg me  01:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Admin incidents
Why did you delete your concerns in the Admin incidents page? I agreed with your concerns, I have the same. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I decided it would be a stupid idea to go that route. Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 03:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Too bad, since I agreed with what you'd put. I wish a higher admin would see what's happening and say who's right and who's wrong. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop with the WP:FORUMSHOPing. There was a massive RFC on this. Bringing things up at every venue under the sun isn’t going to drive a resolution on things. You were right to remove the ANI report - they don’t address minor content disputes. It would have gone nowhere. Arbcom is extremely unlikely to work as well. Seriously, this is a minor dispute over a thing of little importance. Sergecross73   msg me  10:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration request
In response to your request for arbitration List of music considered the worst, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. The comments made by the arbitrators can be viewed at the above link. Dispute resolution also contains information and advice about resolving disputes on Wikipedia which you may find useful. I hope this helps. – bradv 🍁  00:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding Sources
Talk: Any way that you can help me how to properly add sources to Wikipedia? (Familyguysofunny (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC))

Situation regarding suckpuppets of Diva206
Just to be clear, I am the real CriticismEdits, and I have not organized any activities that would harm Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia, both on my original username, and my new one right now. Users Diva206 and Hazard907 just copied my userpage. RareButterflyDoors (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
You have been told multiple times that is not a valid rationale. Stop dwelling on all of that. There is an active dispute amongst editors who is not that editor. You cannot use that as an excuse to edit without consensus. Seriously, how many bad decisions can you make on this topic? 2 rejected RFCs. A rejected ANI report. A rejected Arbcom case. Pretty sure there were some other rejected noticeboard discussions you started too. Please stop before you get blocked for disruptive editing and wasting the community’s time with these bad decisions you keep making. Sergecross73  msg me  23:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How is it not a valid rationale? An IP sock of The abominable Wiki troll reinstated the entry, and I feel that WP:DENY is perfectly valid in this case. The dispute only exists because of TAWT's actions. By continuing to allow Sgt. Pepper on the list, we are giving TAWT the kind of attention they crave. Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How are you not getting this? There are people who are not that troll who supported it. There was a massive RFC where like 10+ people supported the content. Not all 10 were socks. Therefore, your rationale is invalid. There has been months on disccussion on the talk page. Seriously, do you think that people are discussing for months just so that you can unilaterally do whatever you want? If it were as simple as your flawed premise, it would have been deleted months ago. How can you not realize this? Sergecross73   msg me  23:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Does that really override the fact that a block-evading sockpuppet was responsible for it all? Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sergecross73   msg me  00:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I kinda feel like we're gonna need multiple opinions from admins on this, though, because of how hotly-contested the issue is. Just one opinion is not gonna cut it for me. Do you think there are any who'd be willing to weigh in? Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 00:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You don’t need to do anything other than wait for someone to create the RFC, and then comment in that. Please focus on consensus building, not obsessing over “winning” against some long term troll. Again, if that was a viable path, that would haven done months ago and this would have been done with long ago. Sergecross73   msg me  00:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So, why hasn't anyone created the RfC yet? Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 00:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The latest discussion was a brainstorming session on how to approach the RFC. Maybe contribute to that rather than storming ahead the wrong way and failing again? Sergecross73   msg me  00:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki troll
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki troll, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki troll and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki troll during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Praxidicae (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sock tagging IP userpages
Hi there, please don't add sock tags on IP user pages. It is practically never helpful, especially so on a highly dynamic range when there's been no edits in a long time. The user in question will have long moved on from those addresses, and tagging the userpage only serves to feed them even more. Thanks, stwalkerster (sock &#124; talk) 12:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: August 2019
Hi there, I've been keeping track of the TV schedules for Nicktoons and Nick Jr. since last year, and have always been adding sources without any problem. As for old last air dates, it's impossible to look on Zap2It archives on Internet Archive starting in 2018 because they got a new design last year which means that when I go to an archived date from 2018, it only shows the information for today, unlike the archives from 2008-2017. This website I found, Anime Superhero, usually keeps track of the TV schedules for all of the Nickelodeon channels, which they've been doing since the 2000s, so that's where I've been getting some of the last air dates from last year because of the new Zap2It design. But nowadays, every time I put updates on the schedule changes for the Nick channels, you keep saying it's false, but it's not! Is there maybe new rules on Wikipedia that is preventing me from making me do what I've been doing since last year? (Anthonyg3281 (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC))
 * Listen, you can't put your sources in the edit summary and call it a day. You actually need to have inline citations within the article itself. Did you actually read WP:BURDEN and WP:INCITE, which I had pointed you to multiple times? Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"Template:Uw-error4im" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Uw-error4im. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bsherr (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Electricburst1996! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)