User talk:Helmboy

Orphaned non-free media (File:Unheard on NBC Sept. 10th, 2012 broadcast end credits from "The New Normal" pilot.ogv)
Thanks for uploading File:Unheard on NBC Sept. 10th, 2012 broadcast end credits from "The New Normal" pilot.ogv. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Flash Video - MPEG-4 ASP, Real Video?
Hello, in the Flash video article you added information about Flash video support for MPEG-4 ASP and RealVideo compressions. Please, could you add any reference to these claims? I don't see any and I cannot find any reference that proves these claims. Are you sure that information is correct?--89.173.219.25 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TVNZ one logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:TVNZ one logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Space Milkshake. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

CI and History on Sky Television page
Hi Helmboy, I saw you undone my edit of who owns Crime & Investigation Network (Australia) and History (Australian television channel) on the Sky Television (New Zealand) page. I have since re-done my edits but thought I should communicate to you directly why I done so. I saw you decided to include information on how CI and History are international networks and only the Australian and New Zealand versions are owned and operated by Foxtel Networks, which I have left. However, the international versions are owned by A+E Networks, a joint venture between The Walt Disney Company (as you stated) and Hearst Corporation. Therefore, I have just changed it from saying Disney are the international owners to A+E Networks are. I hope that clarifies why I have done this. Thanks, Forbesy 777 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to List of digital television channels in Australia, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. - Mike Beckham (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Blue Bloods Broadcast section
Hi Helmboy,

I saw you undone my reverting of your edit to the broadcast section of Blue Bloods and thought I would start a conversation with you about why I done it and your opinion on the topic. I have spent much time editing broadcast sections of multiple series to fit the guidelines set by WP:TVINTL by writing them in prose form instead of being listed in a giant table which includes all countries and not just the main Westernised countries as stipulated by WP:TVINTL. In saying that, I have never seen a broadcast section set out as you done on Blue Bloods, taking it as not fitting the guidelines and thus undoing it. However, after reviewing the guidelines for the millionth time I don't see anything wrong with the way you've set it out, except that it doesn't fit with the broadcast sections that are the norm for other series. Do you believe it to be necessary to have the countries separated into their geographical location, and their flag to be included? As the only countries to be included in the broadcast section are usually U.S.A., Canada, U.K., Australia and New Zealand, I'm wondering if it just wastes space by separating them.

Please reply on my talk page here anytime so we can figure out what should be done.

Thanks and happy holidays,

Forbesy 777 (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply Helmboy. Thanks for removing the section headings. I'm glad to see we could come to an agreement of what should be done =). Happy holidays Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

International broadcast
WP:TVINTL says that the broadcast section should be detailed in prose form and that English-speaking countries should be listed. The exclusion of non-English countries has wide support and has been discussed at length. This edit is not prose, it is listification with inappropriate use of flags and includes non-English countries, so it doesn't comply with WP:TVINTL, MOS:FLAG or consensus. Sorry, but I have reverted the edited as it isn't an improvement on the table. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten it as tables go against style recommendations in such sections. As for only being non english ,you should reread the guide, which states This section is best named simply "Broadcast" and also address broadcasting in the country of origin. Shows should be categorized by original broadcasters but not by other ones  and countries that the series appears through prose form.   If you still don't like it, then re-write it.  If it gets reverted to the table version again, I'll have no other option and just remove the TV guide style violating listing.  PS, the flag templates were kept for the ease of prose conversion.Helmboy (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:TVINTL ays "editors are encouraged to instead detail English-speaking countries". As I said, the exclusion of non-English countries has wide support. The international broadcast section was only recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television and before that in several discussions now archived to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 2. Retention of flags to make things easy is not an excuse to violate MOS:FLAG. You should never half-do something. As for removing the section entirely just because it violates a guideline would be considered disruptive. Guidelines are not hard and fast rules that we absolutely have to follow. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides the TV style guide, prose does look cleaner and clearer than a bloated table. As for the limits on only listing native-speaking countries, that's highly debatable as a number of countries such as in Mexico don't dub over the soundtrack and just provide translation via either burnt-in or selectable subtitling.  As for MOS:FLAG, there is nothing there that says they can't be used in prose, just not in info boxes.Helmboy (talk) 09:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:NOICONS, which specifically discourages the use of flags in prose. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the case of a paragraph that lists multiple countries with flags would be an exception as it would help the reader locate a specific sentence. The alternative would be to paragraph every sentence which would effectively create a list instead of prose.  WP:NOICONS in terms of prose more refers to irrelevant icons breaking up the readability of the prose.Helmboy (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Nine Network, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Also see WP:BURDEN Bidgee (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is the broadcast, just as prod. numbers are sourced from the broadcast copyright slate of WB and Fox shows. They don't issue on-line press releases to cite such changes.Helmboy (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you revert yourself, since you just breached WP:BURDEN, WP:V and WP:EDITWAR. For all we know, you've created a hoax. Bidgee (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Go watch subtitled shows (with subtitles on) like Ellen, Extra and Partners which all state the accreditation at the start and/or end of the show. It is perfectly valid to not cite for broadcast material when the reference can be found in the broadcast itself and nowhere else.  If this wasn't the case, production numbers added to a host of TV show articles are all in violation and should be removed.  Just because you obviously do NOT need or use the subtitling to notice this change of who did and now does the subtitling, does not invalidate what I added from my observations.  Also stop using the guidelines to control article contributions.Helmboy (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have decided I will remove the edit and also end any future edits to any article I update due to the dictating nature of editors who like to rigidly control certain articles by threatening other editors. Wikipedia can say good by to yet another fed up editor.  So much for this being a repository of knowledge.Helmboy (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Such edits clearly would have a source online, even about TV programs. Remember '"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (WP:BURDEN). Now that I'm not using a mobile device, I done a quick search and found this, even so it isn't up to me to find reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits (DAYS concerned)
I keep reverting your edits on Days of our Lives because they are not written grammatically correct in English form, and I am simply trying to make it flow better. And you continue adding things will ill-sourcing or no sourcing at all. And you need sources to prove your points. The episode count you provided is not in the source you provided, so until it is, it will continue to be removed. Wikipedia runs on reliable sourcing, which you should be correcting citing, no just adding in bare reference links. You seem to think I'm doing this to be mean, I'm not. I'm doing this to follow the polices we're all meant to follow. That is all.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 03:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is entirely your opinion on the grammar, as is the flow. And episode counts are generally not sourced as they are incremented counts.  If they had to be sourced then the US count in the info box would be invalid.Helmboy (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more my trying to have it corrected, as when spoken out it does not sound grammatically correct, but it's also for the validity of Wikipedia to make it a proper encyclopediac source of information. And everything should be generally, for the most part, sourced. I just don't want you thinking I'm trying to egg you on or anything. Just trying to explain why I'm editing the way I am since I'm being accused of being a *grammar police* who you're trying to *appease*. And the U.S. airdate count is correct, according to NBC's website count of episodes.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 04:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The NBC site shows the daily production number that Sony uses, it is technically not the count. Also since it is a production number it does not need referencing due to such numbers generally only being referenced internally by studios or on end of credit production slates.Helmboy (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Nine News edit
Hello, I'm Melbourne3163. I noticed that you made a change to the Nine News article on 9 February 2014, but you didn't provide a source of any kind. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These are wildfeeds and I provided a link to the Satbeams site.Helmboy (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback needed on using special characters
Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

Issues you might consider:
 * How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
 * Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
 * How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
 * Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
 * How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
 * How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
 * The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters?  If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
 * Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
 * Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

num_seasons
Please note, the instructions for Infobox television say that  or   is for "the number of seasons (US) or series (UK) produced", not the number of seasons or series that have been completed, so this edit was wrong, as were several other edits that you have made stating that the field is for completed seasons only. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Given production dates are unavailable and shows are only months or weeks or days out from the broadcast date. Going by the broadcast date is better for constancy and in line with the num_episodes field.  Please be more logical and practical about this.  Don't just go verbatim by what was written.Helmboy (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Once a single episode has aired within a season that is how many seasons have aired at that time. Which means that it is already in line with the num_episodes field. If a show is cancelled after airing a single episode of a season that season still existed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec)You are editing articles inconsistently with the way that the infobox has been used for many years. Once a season begins airing the field is updated because this confirms that the season has been produced (only a single episode is necessary for a season). This is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television as a result of your recent edits, which have been reverted by multiple editors. If you have a problem with this, please take it up at WT:TV, as another editor has suggested. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Your recent editing history at Days of Our Lives shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Entertainment Tonight. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. We do not feature technical or satellite information about any programming because that information is solely esoteric and applies to network master controls only; anyone reading this article has no interest in closed captioning and screen formatting specifications. Please do not place this information in this or The Insider articles again, and work within the existing Manual of Style. Thank you.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 08:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of WP:MOS has nothing to do with the Distribution section being too technical and more to do with your personal opinion of what details YOU think are a valid for inclusion in a TV show article. There is absolutely no reason why details on how a show is put together and the method of distribution wouldn't be relative to an article or to a reader.  Please STOP using guidelines as a very flimsy justification for your personal views.  Also please stop owning articles you edit. I am getting very close to confining my edits to sites that have editors that are more co-operative and less directorial than the small number of wikipedia editors who choose to dominant articles.helmboy 00:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with the section is that not many people care about this information at all because they don't have large send-and-receive satellite facilities to watch a program; the majority depend on television stations and their television provider to give them that those programs so they don't even have to think about how it comes from the satellite. No cable channel article has this information. No network program in any country carries this complicated information. The purpose of articles should be to explain, in clear English, what a subject is. I'm going by what is usually seen in a program article. If someone wants to read the technical specs of a show, there are places to read that information off-site.
 * There is also no ownership of the article taking place at all; I'm only following our guidelines, and a picture of color bars with words upon it adds no further understanding to the article, and under our fair use guidelines, if we can't clearly explain the purpose of an image and why it should go there, then we shouldn't include it. You have been warned multiple times to follow the guidelines in several cases; they're there for a reason, to keep articles under a certain way to read to both being easy to understand and written well.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of if a reader has a dish and receiver to obtain the FTA feed is NOT a reason for lack of inclusion. Any information of note relating to the subject of the article is perfectly valid.  You are still showing your OWN personal preference on what you think is noteworthy for inclusion in an article, just like a number of other editors here.  As for the slate image, it is used as a verification reference that the feed exists and valid under fair use just as any title sequence screen grab is.  Also most distribution details are NOT on other sites due to the small amount of internet users that have capable satellite setups, also all distributors do not make these details publicly available. helmboy 21:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And STOP your bully tactics to enforce your point-of-view. helmboy 21:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ET feed slate.png
 Thanks for uploading File:ET feed slate.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Insider feed slate.png
 Thanks for uploading File:The Insider feed slate.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Insider season 6 logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Insider season 6 logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  TLSuda (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summaries
Please do not make inappropriate edit summaries like this. It's a borderline personal attack. Note that MOS:TV says the broadcast section should preferably be presented in prose format and this has consensus after a recent discussion,. After that discussion many articles were changed by various editors so that they would comply with the MOS and consensus. Since Last Resort (U.S. TV series) already complied with the MOS it was not changed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You did not like the cleaner and clearer reformatted prose I used. And are still attacking other editors by your unfounded revert-ions. helmboy 04:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Your reformatted prose was not cleaner because it reduced full sentences to stubby, incomplete sentences. Prose requires full sentences. I had reverted to your version until I realised that the sentences had been abbreviated. Short paragraphs should not be sectioned into even shorter paragraphs. Reverting inappropriate edits is not attacking editors, it's responsible editing. Please note that Wikipedia is not a TV Guide, so we don't include viewing times. This too is supported by consensus. Nor do we use pseudo headings. Headings should always be formatted correctly. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The reverted version is ONE paragraph of stubby, complete sentences which do NOT link together. A paragraph of prose should be structured to seamlessly link the sentences for good readability and comprehension.  Also, providing the start time of the first scheduled showing hardly constitutes a TV guide, it gives the reader the indication if a show was shown in primetime or was off-peak burn off.  And responsible editing is NOT simply reverting, it's understanding why an edit was made and contributing by making the edit better.  Reverting because YOU don't like something is hardly helpful for harmonious editing community.  helmboy 08:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A paragraph of complete sentences is better than one consisting of bullet points, which is what you had reduced some of the sentences to. While you may disagree about the non-use of times, this has wide consensus. If something is shown in prime time, then that's what the article should say rather than specifying the actual time. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You do not get to reinvent or ignore consensus to suit your personal POV. If you don't have a source that states a show is shown in English with subtitles, you cannot include it in the table. You can come up with all the lame brained, manipulative rhetoric you wish, but consensus is consensus, period. Knock off the POV pushing, and stop the edit warring to suit your personal agenda. --Drmargi (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have restored the MOS compliant edits to the article. As of now you've made 3 reverts. Reverting again will breach the three-revert rule. It would be unwise to do that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Because of the arrogance and stupidity of certain editors in regard in enforcing certain silly rules for TV show articles I will no longer be contributing to such articles and will make better use of my time improving the articles on the better and broader resource at The TV IV. PS, thanks for killing TV show editing on this site!!! helmboy 02:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Non -English broadcasts
This edit summary demonstrates a misunderstanding of the consensus regarding "non-English broadcasts". It refers to broadcasts in countries where English is not the language generally spoken, not whether or not the program is broadcast in English with or without subtitles. As was explained by another editor, a claim that a series was broadcast in English with subtitles requires a source, but whether or not it happened is really irrelevant. Please note that there is varying opinion on whether even English language broadcasts be included. Some editors believe that only notable broadcasts be included. For example, when a series produced in one country is first aired in another. Please respect the consensus, as we are all expected to do. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Studio (web series)


A tag has been placed on Studio (web series) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. War wizard90 (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. War wizard90 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:FLYNN BILLY M.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:FLYNN BILLY M.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ascension (TV series). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your latest edit was WP:POINT and childish. Please self-revert. Do not force a confrontation on WP:ANI. Sometimes you can't have what you want. --Drmargi (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The stated reason was ONE demo column wasn't necessary because of low ratings, which as commonsense dictates means the Viewers column should not be included either. Also there are no guidelines on where the ratings figures must be placed, there is only a field in the episode list template.  And you have already made this a confrontation with your narrow view on the guidelines, that re-word into your own set or rules. helmboy 01:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Ascension (TV series). Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Common sense does not justify continued disruptive, pointy editing and edit warring. Please do not put words into other editors' mouths, especially to justify your continued disruption of the article. --Drmargi (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ascension (TV series).

Now you're just being petty. STOP your disruptive editing and move on. --Drmargi (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation


Hello, Helmboy,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you were one of the very first testers of VisualEditor, back in 2012 or early 2013. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work better for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list •  Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter  •   Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Your recent editing history at Olympus (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. Pjstar35 (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The new editor has on more than one occasion taken ownership of any articles he edits and constantly mis-quotes guidelines or makes them up to suits his motives. I have now reached the point of not editing any article he has edited and will soon be leaving this site if this kind of controlling tactics becomes the norm among a select group of editors. As talking does NOT work. helmboy 02:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Trust me, I understand your frustration with said editor. Just view the closed discussions on the Constantine (TV Series) talk page and you'll see what I mean.  However, knowing said editor the way that I do I threw up this warning for you here to hopefully get you to give up before you end up losing your battle and getting a 24 hour 3RR ban like I did because of him. There are too many closed-minded editors like the one you're dealing with that are making editing articles here more of a "chore" than it should be.  I'm sure this isn't what the founders of Wikipedia intended when they started this project.  On a side note, I also put this Edit Warring warning on the other editor's talk page but he promptly deleted it from his talk page with his usual rude comments towards me, which you can see if you look at the history on his talk page. Pjstar35 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Please do not remove the copyvio template from articles, as you did with List of Young & Hungry episodes. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Talk:List of Young &. If you continue to insert copyright violations and/or remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. Callmemirela ( Go Habs Go! ) 14:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the copied text!!!!!!helmboy 14:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Your recent editing history at List of Young & Hungry episodes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 16:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of Young & Hungry episodes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Callmemirela ( Go Habs Go! ) 16:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This from the editor who has reverted more and annoyed other editors when his misquoting guidelines. helmboy 16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This from the immature editor who had no idea how to edit Wikipedia, given his constant need and desire to go against consensus and standard practice, and revert even the most basic and required of edits. By the way? Go back to the Ascension article - I got more support against you than you ever did for your edits. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  16:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I could quote a whole lot of examples of your controlling edits but I'd be here for days. And that's the only thing you can come up with as those few editors are known for their narrow views on the guidelines. helmboy 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The issues of my "controlling" edits and other editors agreeing with me is because both I and they know that editing Wikipedia should be controlled by guidelines so that diruptive editing can be kept to a minimal, and that all articles are controlled by the same rules. However, it seems that you are too immature, inexperienced, disruptive and careless to even take this into consideration. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  16:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, you shouldn't be talking. This only makes your case worse. You have edit warring in within an hour and you have again removed the template. The issue hasn't been resolved by admins! Have you not read the template? You are disrupting Wikipedia, you are removing templates and you are engaging yourself in edit war. If you continue to edit like this, you will be reported to admins. STOP.  Callmemirela  ( Go Habs Go! ) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was never an issue when all that was needed was to remove the text as I did. helmboy 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you blind? Have you even had the decency to read the template before editing nonsense? It explicitly reads that no edits are allowed UNTIL IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED BY AN ADMIN. Removing the copyright text does not help your case. Learn to edit properly first before judging other users' edits. Callmemirela ( Go Habs Go! ) 16:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * see User_talk:Callmemirela helmboy 16:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove the copyvio template from articles, as you did with List of Young & Hungry episodes. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Talk:List of Young &. If you continue to insert copyright violations and/or remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. Last warning Callmemirela  ( Go Habs Go! ) 16:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Callmemirela ( Go Habs Go! ) 17:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Some advice
Hi there. Following the ANI report filed by, it seems to me that you sometimes have problems abiding by Wikipedia policy and working in conjunction with other editors. Both of these are key to the smooth running of the Encyclopedia so I would ask you to make every effort in the future to behave civily towards others and adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, particularly with regard to edit warring and copyright issues. Continued disregard for Wikipedia's norms of behavior will lead to a review of your editing privileges and their possible suspension. Thank you for your attention. Philg88 ♦talk 06:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is only a select few editors that use the TV guidelines as a rule book to justify their actions. Myself and other editors have been getting put off editing any TV article these editors are in control of.  If their controlling attitudes go unchecked this site will only end up have them being the only ones editing any and all TV articles.  Also if the admins have yet to noticed the List of Young & Hungry episodes that was restored from my temp page has been edited by the above editors to reflect Talk:List of Young & Hungry episodes/Temp which still uses the reworded copied copyrighted structured summaries, so the page is again in violation.  I leave it to you to do something about that, because I just about done with the TV articles on this site. PS, no one seems to care that the COPYVIO template that started the whole problem was the incorrect option to use and removing the summaries was. helmboy 00:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe that there are copyright problems with an article then you should report the matter at the appropriate venue rather than engage in an edit war. Philg88 ♦talk 10:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you looked at the article's history it wasn't an edit war over the copyright issue, that was a misunderstanding over if the article could be fixed without an admin involved after the article was blocked out. And the all my point is NOW is now is with the said article having gone back to a similar state that started the COPYVIO template being added.  And I no longer care about such articles with certain editors now in control of them, I'm just letting you know that the controlling and bullying actions of these editors has not solved anything. helmboy 10:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect
This was unnecessary and made no sense. I have removed the (confusing) redirect it left behind. Keri (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello, I'm AlexTheWhovian. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of iZombie episodes, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 03:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You obnoxious and controlling little editor with the stupid Doctor Who fanboy nickname, it is quite clear that the last two digits on futon critic numbering does match the last two digits of the production code and that series is always airs produced eps in order. And thanks for letting me know that this show is yet another one I should add to the list of ones you control and should be avoided.  And you ARE not allowed to post on this page, so go away!!!!! helmboy 04:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do remain civil, personal attacks are punishable by blocks, and I will report you. And what you think is obvious is original research - also punishable. Not my fault you can't follow Wikipedia policy, buddy. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  04:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And I don't really care what you do, just keep off this page and I will keep off all the pages you seem to own!!!!! helmboy 05:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is owning any pages - you just don't know how to edit properly, and you're getting grumpy at other's actions that are a result of your own. And no need to ping me, I've got this on my Watchlist.  Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  05:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You are and now you are trying to own my talk page. If you post here one more time I will report your controlling actions. helmboy 10:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, no probs. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  10:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Undateable episodes, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bravoplus1.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Bravoplus1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)