User talk:Jabrona

Andrea Moreno
I noticed your edits in List of Ghost Whisperer characters about Andrea Moreno's name. I changed it from Marino to Moreno because I have official source, a book that is published by the Producer of the show (this is why I gave a reference after her full name and explanation to the talk page). I have reverted your edits to Moreno again. w_tanoto (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. --Snowman Guy (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Template:Halloween, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Template:Halloween was changed by Jabrona (u) (t) blanking the page on 2009-01-15T20:18:06+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Halloween template
Please stop removing the sequel link. The reason it was placed there is because there has been a history of anonymous editors creating pages with various titles in reference to the Halloween sequel. The link was placed there to deter them from creating a page by giving them a link to the information.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Triwbe (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maxine Johnson
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Maxine Johnson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * unnotable insignificant fictional character

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ejfetters (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance Templates
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Ejfetters (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

more March 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Tvoz / talk 05:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Halloween
Please see the discussion on the 2009 film's talk page. The official websites are listing "Halloween II" and the TV spots are now listing "Halloween II". Unless someone comes out and says "No, this is the real title", then for all intents and purposes "Halloween II" is the official title. If you disagree, please go to the talk page instead of just moving the pages back. Thanks.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Two editors have reverted you now, and 3 editors are in agreement that the page should be "Halloween II" when you include the talk page discussion. Please do not change the page again. This includes moving the 1981 film page title as well. If you continue to refuse to discuss this on the talk pages, and just revert the page titles then I'll be forced to report your edits to an Admin.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing "would pick up where Halloween II ends and" and adding "movie" to the Halloween franchise page. The first bit is in the source, it's verified. The second ("movie") is an unprofessional term.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Don't change info without changing the reference NrDg 21:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Child's Play remake
In reference to your removal of information from Child's Play (film series): there is a discussion relating to the possible remake on the article talk page – Talk:Child's Play (film series). If you believe the information to be incorrect, I invite you to present your reasons there. Thank you. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jabrona, I've moved your input to here – Talk:Child's Play (film series) – where it can be read by other editors. If you can remember which publication or website the article was in, that would be of immense help.  Thanks. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be great to get a citation for this. It may well be that the abandoned plans are notable enough to keep the section but include news of the discontinuation. Note that it is still getting regular edit indicating an imminent release. Thanks. -- ToET 00:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

re: your message
Hi Jabrona, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- User:Marek69. 05:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 16:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Feedingondoughnutsxz5.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Feedingondoughnutsxz5.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  The left orium  14:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Bhm gods stepchildren.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Bhm gods stepchildren.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ╟─TreasuryTag► Captain-Regent ─╢ 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Bhm gods stepchildren.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bhm gods stepchildren.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.

File:220px-Treehouse of Horror XIV.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:220px-Treehouse of Horror XIV.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Jordan 1972 (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Jordan 1972 (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Skinthemovie.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Skinthemovie.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jordan 1972 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Son of the pink panther.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Son of the pink panther.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Skinthemovie.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Skinthemovie.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:The privilege of youth.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:The privilege of youth.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Son_of_the_pink_panther.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Son_of_the_pink_panther.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Sandlot2.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sandlot2.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Pigman_2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Pigman_2.jpg. 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 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. Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:220px-Treehouse of Horror XIV.png
A tag has been placed on File:220px-Treehouse of Horror XIV.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. multichill (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Pigman.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Pigman.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude ( talk  06:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Sandlot2.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sandlot2.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Skier Dude ( talk  06:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pigman 3.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pigman 3.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Skier Dude ( talk  06:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Help yourself.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Help yourself.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Skier Dude ( talk  06:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:A man named dave.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A man named dave.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Skier Dude ( talk  06:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pigman2.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pigman2.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Skier Dude ( talk  06:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Movie-censorship.com
I have started a larger discussion about movie-censorship.com at WT:FILM. Your thoughts are welcome. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I'll be looking at it now and will be leaving a response. Jabrona (talk &#124; contribs) - 21:18, 8 Janurary 2011 (UCT)

January 2011
Your addition to List of Medium episodes (season 7) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Summaries copied word for word from CBS.com.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Jason
It's original research to say what is and what is not in continuity. The only thing anyone has ever said was that they intentionally put Jason X in the future so that it would not conflict with any other storyline that could come later (even a FvJ one). The writers of FvJ never stated that it takes place in that continuity, or anything. They can point out that clearly Jason X takes place much later, but that's it. You also cannot connect dots and say that it was intended to have Jason be alive with no actual resurrection in Jason X because he would be resurrected in FvJ....that's original research. Cunningham did not have the foresight to see what the story would be for FvJ because he didn't have a hand in writing it. Regardless, it's not relevant to point out where something might fall in "continuity" on these pages because it doesn't matter to the film itself.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The original research stands to be very well supported though. Clearly Jason X was not intended to be some sort of reboot of the series but the series' 10th film. And true, Sean Cunningham didn't foresee what story Freddy Vs. Jason would turn out to be, but he did know that it was going to be made eventually. He knew it was going to take place after Jason Goes to Hell and knew it was going to feature Jason's resurrection after that movie. Jason X was meant to take place after Freddy Vs. Jason whenever it got made and Freddy Vs. Jason can easily fall in before it, otherwise Cunningham would have went about his own thing and adding in Jason's resurrection. But surprisingly he didn't and left that alone. What else can you build off from that? Jabrona - 01:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The truth is, from the moment they decided to put FREDDY KRUEGER IN JASON GOES TO HELL, PULLING HIS MASK INTO HELL, they were planning a Freddy vs. Jason and knew it would deal with Jason's resurrection somehow. But FvJ was stuck in development hell when the time came to make another film, so they made a film set in the future, either to give us time while we wait for Freddy vs. Jason, or to kill him off for good (like they did with Pinhead in Hellraiser Bloodline). I agree with you completely. Unfortunately I've tried arguing with Bignole before, we had this exact same conversation and when the chief admin thinks something, there's no changing his mind. IMO it's original research to state it's NOT in continuity. At the end of JGtH he was PULLED INTO HELL with NO BODY TO STRIKE WITH LIGHTNING. How else could he have come back if it wasn't someone from the inside? (It used to be worse though... he used to think Jason survived the end of Jason X) Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I wanted to tell Bignole and wait for his response to what I said but then I figured was it really worth it. I tried to explain to him the whole ordeal and I can see your point. But I know Jason X was made to make room for Freddy Vs. Jason to take place before it explaining Jason's resurrection. And about Jason X, though it's not officially said, I think Jason was killed for good because he was disintegrated in the atmosphere and I don't think there was anything left of him but his mask that landed into the sea below on Earth 2. I will convince Bignole otherwise once more and see what happens now. He never did read my response I wrote three weeks ago.Jabrona - 01:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No argument there. As I tried to explain to Bignole, he is even listed under the "Jump to Death" menu (listing the death scenes in the movie) alongside Brodski with "Atmosphere" as cause of death. Bignole has not responded to that however, which makes me a tad suspicious, but at least he hasn't changed "is incinerated in the atmosphere of Earth 2" back to "landing on Earth 2" as he used to. Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, what appears in a special feature is not a reflection of what appears on screen. On screen, you do not see him dead in Jason X. On screen, there is no mention of continuity between Jason Goes to Hell, Jason X, and Freddy vs. Jason. The plot section is a reflection of what happens on the screen itself. Would you feel better if we just removed the "retcon" word from the second film? We can do that. Then there won't be an argument about which films have retcons and which are just continuity errors.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is where the original research comes in, there is no indication in FvJ that Jason coming out of the ground is meant to reference him being pulled under in Jason Goes to Hell. If that was the case, then the locations are completely different. The second part of the original research is even assuming that Freddy vs. Jason takes place in the same world. With exception to the basic backstory each character has, there are no references to previous films or storylines. Jason is considered a "legend" in Springwood, yet in Jason Goes to Hell he's clearly so well known by that point that it would be hard to imagine no one knows who he is except one lone cop and it's only been 10 years since he supposedly "disappeared". FvJ "indicates" that Jason's killing spree took place so long before that when he does appear it's assumed it's a "copy cat" and not actually the real person. So, a part from the film falling between Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X on a yearly timeline, there's no mention of any previous film to indicate that it has any relationship with any previous film.


 * In addition, the scene at the end of Jason Goes to Hell did not spark the creation of Freddy vs. Jason. The discussion of a versus film was being worked on way back when New Blood came out. That was years before Jason Goes to Hell was even a drunk glaze on the film franchise radar. Read Crystal Lake Memories, they were trying to get that versus film going since the late 80s. Once New Line bought the Friday the 13th franchise it was easier, but then they couldn't get a good story. So they made Jason Goes to Hell and Freddy's Dead to keep life in both franchises while they tried to figure a story out. Freddy's arm at the end is intended to be a gag, as stated in Crystal Lake Memories. When they couldn't get a story finished by the end of the 90s, they decided to make Jason X and intentionally pushed it back into the future so that it would not confuse fans in case they ever got FvJ off the ground. Then Jason X sat on the shelf for over a year before they ever released it. By that time, they finally had a story to work with on FvJ and thus it was released in 2003.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you're both using a lot of original research to try and tie films together. If your statement starts with, "it's obvious" then you're already on the path of original research. If you disagree so much, feel free to start a discussion at either WP:HORROR or WP:FILM regarding what you would like the page to say, and why you feel that it is not original research to say such a thing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Jabrona, I have started a debate thread under the talk for Jason's article, where people give their views on both sides. You might want to check it out. I'm sure Bignole won't be able to miss it easily. I must say, if it wasn't for you I might've given up but maybe together we can clear this up once and for all. Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, other people besides the three of us can also give their views, and one other person is on our side as well, while Bignole seems to be alone in his opinion. Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Denise Boutte, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Leave my edit alone cause your just jealous that yours aren't as good--86.46.179.32 (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

leave my edit alone and stop critisizing me as if I vandilized. Plus you are jealous and you know it :p--86.46.179.32 (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

your signs of jealousy 1.Calling me dumb 2.Calling it unessesary (the edit) 3.Dening Jealousy 4.Insulting me as if I vandilized (I said as if! not that you where sayig i was vandilizing) ---86.46.167.198 (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Loser. ;p ha ha!. technically i won the fight cause i made you angry and you ddin't make me angry ha ha!--86.46.167.198 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Im the user on that Icarly page th user that measged you above i made an acocunt - --Jake M. Yore (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

iCarly Production Codes
The video did not support you claim for the prod. code. Just because it was uploaded on June 23, does not mean it was filmed the week of the 23rd. The reference you used for the Obama episode supports it was filmed on the 13th however there could've been a week before or a week after they didn't film. Where are you getting that each week is a different prod. code? We need references that state "iStill Psycho" is #408-409 not by the weeks filmed with is OR. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything you said is considered "Original Research." This is practically the only source we can use for Production Code references as no other sites post Production Codes anymore. We cannot use what you think when episodes are filmed as production codes. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I get it. You're welcome for the source. I didn't know which source either until I asked someone else and I did he same thing you did. I used information I could gather up (there's this forum that has Disney Channel premiere schedules but we can't use that as a source as it's a forum). But if you need anything else, let me know. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

iBalls
Just because there's a promo on TV is not a reliable source. You need a Physical Reference (Press Release or video From the official website, YouTube) to support your claim. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: iCarly - Season 6
I understand that there are new episodes being produced, but I'm not convinced that they are part of season six. If production truly did wrap up last summer on season 5, I'll be entirely convinced. However, there are no sources given to suggest that production for season 5 really is over. The only thing suggesting this is an unsourced sentence on the season 5 article. An extensive Google search reveals nothing other than links to Wikipedia and the iCarly Wiki, both of which are unsourced. Can you point me to the original source of this information? If not, then the only thing suggesting a sixth season is an unsourced statement and a lot of assumptions based on a short sentence on a blog. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: iCarly
Don't undo my edits without discussing first. This was discussed at length for a week at Talk:List of iCarly episodes, and no one brought any legitimate argument as to why it should have stayed the same. There was no "sudden change." I was doing what should have been done a long time ago. There is only one source that supports a split season, which was a single promo aired before one episode. There are way more sources confirming a single season. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the blog post, Dan Schneider didn't even know what was going on, so that can't be used as a reliable source. Every other source still goes by the single season plan.  Nickelodeon's press releases, DVD releases, and external sources still use the single season.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not very reassuring when the title of the blog post includes "Huh?" Also, a new intro doesn't automatically mean it's a new season.  Networks falsely advertise "new seasons" all the time.  Since that's the only thing a split would be going off of, there's no reason to split it.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just the title; he later said "I kinda don't even know myself." Unlike the 45-episode order for season 2, the recent 26-episode order actually was split up into two 13-episode orders, as made evident by Nickelodeon press releases, external sources, and DVD releases.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That article was published in April 2011, between airings of "iOMG" and "iParty with Victorious". The article says "iCarly, which is currently airing third season..."  The article proves that the 45 episodes were a single season, and that the currently airing episodes are season 4.  This also means that there will be one more season after the current 13 finish.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The following reputable websites support the single 45-episode season: a highly respected site with show listings, the announcement of the season 5 renewal for 2012, and a Nickelodeon press release. The only thing supporting a split is a single Nickelodeon promo.  Promos are incorrectly done all the time, and they occasionally lie to boost ratings.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that Wikipedia goes off of external reliable sources. The only ones out there support the single 45-episode second season.  If the press goes off the production seasons, then so do we.  No source goes off of "broadcast seasons," which don't even exist anyway.  Dan Schneider's blog is in no way reliable when he says "I guess," "Huh?," "I kinda don't even know myself," and "I think."  He doesn't even know himself.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it was accepted two and a half years ago. It's being challenged now.  The source fails three of the five requirements listed at WP:SELFPUB: "2. it does not involve claims about third parties."  The source claims that Nickelodeon, a separate entity, is making a new season.  "4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity."  Again, "I think," "I guess," and "I kinda don't even know" don't help the source's case.  "5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."  The split would rely completely on this source.  Therefore, the source fails.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if it passed requirement #2, it would still fail the other two, and any other editor would agree with me. I'm curious, if you feel so strongly about this, why didn't you bring all this up last week when it was proposed?  Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: iCarly - Split Season Defense
Schneider isn't being very reassuring here, and furthermore, he is making conclusions about a third party when he has no direct knowledge himself. However, it's irrelevant because the blog still fails WP:SELFPUB by criterion 5. The decision to split wouldn't be based primarily on the blog; it would be based solely on the blog. Even if the blog could be used, you said on my talk page that "the blog was actually the only useful thing I could use." There is still way more evidence to support that it's a single season. I listed three such sources above and at Talk:List of iCarly episodes. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it passed 2 and 4. I only mentioned #5 above because it's easiest to explain.  I also disagree with listing the 14th Victorious episode as season two, but the only reason I haven't said anything about it is because I can't find any reliable external sources that agree with me.  That isn't the case here.  I've cited plenty of sources that suggest a single season for iCarly.  I'm not saying that a 2xx production line absolutely must be the second season, it just happens that that is the case here.  For example, an episode of Fringe ("Unearthed") intended for season 1 aired in season 2, but we consider it season 2 because of various external sources.  In this case, we have no reliable external sources to suggest a split season.  "[Dan] heard something from the network" isn't enough to suggest a split.  The blog, in this situation, should not be used at all.  That's the only thing that says there was a split season, and there are many, many sources that conflict this.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The only evidence suggesting there is a difference between "production seasons" and "broadcast seasons" is Dan Schneider's blog. I've explained many times that the blog shouldn't be used, so any argument that is based on the blog shouldn't be used either.  You also can't use the Victorious argument, as that's a completely separate case.  They may be similar, but they are separate.  It comes down to this: there are multiple reliable external sources that suggest a single season, and the only source that suggests otherwise is an unreliable source from a blog.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because he didn't correct the interviewers doesn't mean it's correct. That whole argument falls under WP:OR, as does the speculation that Schneider would have said something about the situation.  iTunes doesn't list episodes in seasons; it lists them in volumes.  The photos at the top of the pages at Amazon also say "volume."  There are still many reliable external sources that say the second season was kept intact.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A volume does not equal a season. If it did, they would have just said "season" like they do on most other pages.  I didn't say anything about the split at True Jackson because I'm not familiar with that show.  The only edits I've made to that page are just removing vandalism and unsourced statements.  You haven't cited a single source that proves that anything you've said is true.  I've provided multiple sources that support a single season.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Volume DVDs
That's still WP:OR and violates WP:OTHERSTUFF. iCarly is not Futurama. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the photo right next to each title says "volume." That's not very reassuring.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, it doesn't. I've provided multiple sources that indicate a single season.  Nothing there indicates that there is a difference between a "broadcast season" or a "production season."  In fact, one of them published just before "iParty with Victorious" even includes the text "iCarly, which is currently airing its third season."  I'm just going to put my evidence in a list below.
 * Multiple Nickelodeon press releases, including
 * Multiple announcements of subsequent seasons, including
 * Multiple highly reputable sites for episode listings that indicate a fourth season is currently airing, including and
 * DVD releases of iCarly
 * And more.
 * There is not a single thing on this list to suggest that there was ever a split. I can assume you will use your argument that these sources are based on the production seasons, and I can say that, because there is no evidence of an actual split, there is no difference between a production season or a broadcast season.  Because of this, these sources are listing the production season and the broadcast season.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your tone in your last couple messages isn't helping your case any. I'll explain once again why the evidence you provided isn't acceptable, broken down by point:
 * A new title sequence is not evidence of a season split. Dan Schneider also is not very reassuring.  Point #1 fails by WP:OR and WP:SELFPUB.
 * Blatant WP:OR. Having 45 episodes in a season is rare, but not unheard of.
 * What sources? It's not my job to provide these; it's yours.  The interview also falls under WP:OR.  How do you know Nathan Kress even knows himself?  It's possible he doesn't know, and it's possible he just didn't care enough to correct them.
 * The 4xx production line episodes have no bearing on this conversation. This debate is over the 2xx production line.
 * No one is disputing that. As I said earlier, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a difference in iCarly, except for the obvious shuffling around of episodes within their individual seasons.
 * As for your questions about why I am so anxious to keep it a single season, I could ask you the same thing. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:AussieLegend‎‎. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

ICarly (season 6)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of ICarly (season 6), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://nz.entertainment.yahoo.com/tv/opinions/show/2918595/watch-icarly-s05e09-iballs/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited ICarly (season 3), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Burke (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) 10:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility
In discussions anywhere on Wikipedia, please comment on content, not on contributors. Some of the comments that you've made at Talk:List of iCarly episodes are perilously close to breaching Wikipedia's civility policy and may even constitute a personal attack. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright block
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You were given a copyright warning on January 14 2011 and told you could not copy plot summaries from other sources, yet today you copied the summary from to ICarly (season 6). You cannot do this. Any plot summaries you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please be sure in the future that content you add to WIkipedia is compliant with our copyright policies; see Copy-paste for a general overview.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The block notice includes instructions for requesting an unblock. Moreover, I watched your page and would have seen any note you left here had you chosen to explain. In either case, you would have been unblocked promptly, I'm sure, had you chosen to appeal.


 * That said, copying content from one Wikipedia article to another is also a copyright problem unless you give proper attribution. Content on Wikipedia is no more public domain that content on most other websites is; when you copy content from one page to another without giving attribution, you are violating the copyright of other contributors. See Copying within Wikipedia for the proper procedures.


 * Besides being legally required to comply with license, noting what you are doing will also help avoid your being blamed by other Wikipedia editors for policy violations or by copyright holders who choose to prosecute infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice
I looked at your last 100 edits, and saw an edit summary in only a handful. The use of edit summaries can be very valuable, particularly when you are doing something that could be misconstrued. (I haven’t looked closely at the recent edit in question, just accepting your word for it, but there is nothing in the edit summary explaining it because you didn’t add an edit summary.)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Production" season
A few days ago I changed what you had added to List of iCarly episodes, explaining in my edit summary that sources have to directly support claims and original research is not permitted. You then restored "production season", which is not mentioned in any of the sources, and therefore constitutes OR. Despite it being reverted by another editor, who pointed you to my edit summary, you've again added "production season". I don't know why you don't seem to get this, since we've discussed it at length on Talk:List of iCarly episodes, but here it is again. As per Verifiability, sources must directly support claims. That means that if the claim says "production season", the source has to say that too, which neither of the references in the article say. To specifically claim that it is a "production season", without a source that says that, is original research and is not permitted. We are limited to reporting what sources say, without providing our own opinions or personal analysis. Accordingle, do not insert "production" into the article unless you can find a reliable source that specifically mentions a fifth production season that commences in 2012. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really didn't see what the problem is with this considering that's what it is. A FIFTH production season since it has the 5xx coding. Now I know you're not too convinced of this whole broadcast airing thing along with Kevin and Alec because you guys want things to run by the production labels despite what sources say supporting the split and would do anything to get around that. But we do have to avoid the confusion. The last time I tried to reference how it was going to air as the broadcast sixth season. I didn't do that this time because you reverted that. Strangely before that, I had it "iCarly has been renewed for a fifth production season, that will air as the broadcast sixth season in 2012" that lasted a good while before it got reverted by you once I added in Miranda's tweet to support that it was airing as Season 6. But you're not too fond on cast members' words either. At least if the thing said "fifth production season" then people would know it's been renewed just that to air in 2012. - Jabrona - 05:18 2 February 2012
 * I think I very clearly explained it above when I said that sources have to  directly  support the claim and because neither source mentions a "production season", use of "production season" constitutes original research. "iCarly has been renewed for a fifth production season, that will air as the broadcast sixth season in 2012" is very clearly  NOT  supported by the sources in the article. That's WP:SYNTH. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

iCarly
You know, I can see edits made to my Talk Page. Just because you deleted your comment, doesn't mean I cannot see it. Do I care that you eavesdropped? No. Because that just goes to show that every time something about the merge has come up elsewhere than the iCarly Talk page, you must comment on it. We've provided more than enough information and just because you present people on "tv.com" and other sites just to come to Wikipedia to say your sources are better without showing them our information is shallow.

Also that you go to other Talk Pages (Such as Wnnse) and make comments like this ''"I've seen your edits over on the Episode Page of this show and I applaud you. Apparently this topic is being debated at the moment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_iCarly_episodes. You can join if you want, but so far I've been the only person really defending this issue with tons of evidence to support it against AussieLegend, Kevinbrogers, and Alec2011 who are doing their absolute best to ignore it all and have Seasons 2 and 3 merged because sources using the production labels to reference the upcoming season as "Season 5" and think there isn't a broadcast or production cycle. I already had two other people on my side and they have two other people. I think you'll be a big support in this so can you be willing to read through it all (there's a lot but nothing you don't want to miss) and give your input? After seeing all of the evidence I presented I'm pretty sure you'll defend this cause." This is shallow. You're not even presenting "our" sources but ONLY yours! You're not giving both sides. They aren't going to read all those "paragraphs" everyone made, you have to present BOTH sides and NOT'' just yours.

How can we take you seriously when you think the rules don't apply in this situation? Also you newest comment here "The codes and the DVD labels are just accounting for their production cycle, not airing cycle, and we follow how a TV show broadcast on TV." Once the DVD releases of a show, we go by what the DVD says. The Second Season was released on 3 volume DVD's labeled Season 2. All 45 episodes were in 3 volumes labeled Season 2. - Alec2011 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not saying that on the Meet The Browns to list each "Volume" as a "season" you list all the episodes in each volume as one season. As in iCarly you list those 3 volumes as "one season" (Season 2) since it's labeled "Season 2." The episodes on both Hannah Montana Season 1 and The Final Season are listed in airing order so that's why we use DVD releases as the final say. Also where's the rules that we list by "how they air on TV." DVD listings are the final say in how the page should be laid out. We go by what the TV says at first but when the DVD releases, that's what we go by. - Alec2011 (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that's NOT my say. Don't be assuming it's only what I think. It's what's reality. I've known this WAY before the whole iCarly thing. Most editors use the DVD releases as the final say. The Hannah Montana reference was to show you that they do list the episodes on DVD as to the airing order on TV (as you said list episode pages by the airing order on DVD). About the meet the Browns, it's pretty obvious that they only put 20 episodes on each DVD. It makes sense as why they would only put 8 episodes into one DVD. It's pretty obvious that Season 2: Volume 1, Volume 2 & Volume 3 mean it's all Season 2 on 3 DVD sets. - Alec2011 (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If Nick intended the split season 2 then the Season 2 DVD releases the first half would be released as "Season 2" and the other half would be Season 3 if it was split. If you take a look at The Wannabes, it's obvious one season was ordered for a total of 26 episodes, but it was split between 2 seasons. They kept the 1xx production codes. HOWEVER on their official website it's indicated that a split happened. Nick hasn't stated that there was a split in season 2. Just because there's a new opening, doesn't mean it's a new season. They also haven't specified which episodes were split (if it was even split). All Nick has said is that all 45 episodes were on 3 volumes for Season 2. - Alec2011 (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For one, the Meet the Browns doesn't have anything to do with "the split." Since you think Hannah Montana was n't split it doesn't have anything to do with that we're talking about, the Brown's doesn't either. That's a different case. Also you indicate that iDate Same and Freddie was "announced" as the season premiere because it was the first episodes produced, however iSaw Him First was promoted as the season premiere and it wasn't the first episode produced. Hannah Montana Season 4 Sweet Home Hannah Montana was announced as the Season Premiere but it was episode 402. Just because Nick called iDate Sam and Freddie was the first episode produced, doesn't mean they meant it as the Season premiere. They also never even promoted a "new season (season 4 with the 3xx codes)" all they were called was "specials." So if they just called them specials it's not a new season. So I'm not sure where you're getting at. They didn't promote iGot a Hot Room as a "new season" but it was 301 that wold make it a "new season" but they didn't it was a special. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well on Big Time Rush, Nick promoted "Big Time School of Rocque" as the season premiere where 101-102 "Big Time Audition" was promoted as a sneak peek. You're saying 401 was promoted as the Season premiere because it was episode 401, but that's not the case it was just the episode Nick decided to air next. I'm saying Meet The Browns is an entirely different story. Stop saying "I claim it's the final say" because I learned from loyal editors that it is the final say, you just don't want to believe that. Not every article is laid out that way but more or likely, trusted editor's will say "DVD releases are the final say" not because I claim it. You don't want to believe that we are right. You just want to hear what you want to hear, that a split actually happened. Nick hasn't specified that a split occurred (as you say it was) but if it did, which episodes were split? A new "opening" isn't enough. The I <3 iCarly DVD collection doesn't specify which episodes so that doesn't count. Miranda and Jennette both say Season 6 & Season 5 so their contradict each other so that can't be used to support it. it really isn't up to you to say "there isn't going to be any reverting anytime soon so you can hold your horses." It's up to the discussion and what different editor's will say. If they decide to merge the 45 episodes then THAT's the final say. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Going with your Gut is Original Research. I'm going with that Nick decided to air 401 as the second episode. To be honest, Nick and Disney are the 2 worst network in terms of reliability. They change info at the last minute, don't advertise "new Seasons" and don't release information correct which causes debates like this. You're tired of this? Aussie, Kevin and I are tired of you trying to say we're wrong and you're right. This should've been done awhile ago but you think you're right and this that "recent" sources don't matter and your "old" sources are correct. Except that Dan said that on his Blog site which isn't counted as a reliable source even if it is his official blog. You seem to think rules don't apply to you. You don't want to take what we say personally. You think that after all this time nothing changed and the season as split all because there was a new opening and NOW you think it has to be like that all because Kevin said something is wrong. I have more to say but I'll wait as I'm going to at dinner now and I don't want to argue at the moment. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah, why is it you always jump to conclusions. Saying things like: "You can't just dismiss simply because it's a blog. It's a very useful blog a that. The information on it just doesn't matter? A race moment sure does come to mind when I see you say something like that. It's things that like that that should definitely have exceptions here." Yes we can, the blog is on blogspot, hence a blog. If it was an official website that he used as a blog then we can take it into consideration. See we use Eric Dean Seation's official website as a reliable source on Austin & Ally's list of episodes page here because it is his official website. Since we know blogspot.com is a place for blogs and blog sites aren't reliable we cannot use it, even if it is the creator's blog. That's what you don't seem to get. Also pulling the "race moment" is very inconsiderate and I should report you as you are still breaking the Wikipedia Civility rules. - Alec2011 (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for clearing that up, but please if that wasn't your intent, please use better words. As for the iTunes, Amazon, etc they do list those "double number" episodes as one episode with one number not 2. If the episode aired as one continuous episode with one set of credits, then it should be listed as one episode not 2. Unless otherwise stated by a reliable source that it is 2 episodes aired as one but if it says an hour-special then it should be listed as one episode. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Amazon, iTunes & TVGuide all list those as 1 episode not 2 or 3. Notice how there's only "10" episodes, not 13. You see they ordered 15 episodes of Hannah Montana (hence the prod. codes go from #401 - #415) however "I'll Always Remember You" and "Wherever I Go" aired as an Hour with one set of credits so it's listed as one episode. We know it was 2 parts as I'll Always Remember You lists 2 directors, Bob Koherr did Part 1 & Shannon Flynn did Part 2. Also if you look here, it states only 10 episodes are on the DVD, not 13. So the numbers are off and they are going to be changed.
 * If you look at he True Jackson, VP (another Nick show) there was only 2 seasons that Nick ordered BUT they split Season 2 into 2 seasons. iTunes lists it that way as well as Amazon. BUT there's also another reference that supports a split happened here. Notice how it says Season 2 & Season 3 (as season 3 as 2xx production codes). Now for iCarly, we have DVD releases that support only seasons 1, 2 & 3 on DVD as supported here. It only shows Season 1 (2 Volumes), Season 2 (3 volumes) and Season 3. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, didn't feel good at all yesterday. Who says Nick & Disney work differently? You may want to take a look at this conversation between Aussie & Me about hour episodes here.
 * As for True Jackson, only 2 seasons were produced but Season 2 was split. As indicated here, It says True Jackson, VP Seasons 2 & 3. As you see here it only mentions iCarly Season 1, Season 2 & Season 3 on DVD (Season 1 has 2 volumes, Season 2 has 3 volumes and Season 3 all by itself). If it was split, it would be Season 1 (2 volumes), Season 2 (2 volumes) Season 3 and Season 4. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do feel better. Getting more sleep and such so I haven't been around. Not sure what it was. I know there was something going around but I was up all night and slept all day but I do feel a lot better.
 * I do agree that hour episodes should be listed as one-episode with 2 (or 3) production codes. The episode count is the same (as to what production codes go from #401-#413), however Nick did order 13 episodes but only 10 aired.
 * Thank you for that information (about the DVD's), I'll take a look at that and get back to you. - Alec2011 (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do, and I feel much better now thank you.
 * I agree, hour-episodes should be listed as such as well as the films.
 * I'll look more into the DVD thing, never heard of it before. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Checker Fred
Checker Fred has never contacted me, and I'm fairly certain he hasn't talked to AussieLegend, either. He is banned from Wikipedia. Don't believe what he says. – Confession0791 talk 05:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ray on The Nanny
Hi, I have re-added your info (in a different way). Hope you like it. If you want to, you can put the info on the List of The Nanny episodes, under that episode. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

iCarly Reference
I think you better take a look at this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citing_multiple_pages_of_the_same_source it will clear things up for Citing multiple pages of the same source. It is an easier way and cleans up the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP Editor 2012 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Jeffersons
I partially reverted your edit to The Jeffersons because it was unsourced and I can't find a source that supports it. Instead, I changed the article to say the show is one of the longest-running sitcoms with a black cast. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Don't know if you have had trouble with this but come join if you have. Also bring other users as well. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Episode_list#Episodes_Numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP Editor 2012 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tracey Kibre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conviction (TV series) (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) 12:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Casey Novak v. Jack McCoy
Just letting you know, that I have reverted your edits on the Casey Novak article, on how you claim Jack McCoy had a longer tenure. You are correct in saying he had a longer tenure - however, wrong for the main part: McCoy was an Executive Assistant District Attorney - Novak was just an Assistant District Attorney or a "Junior ADA" as they have been referred to as in Law & Order --- Not an "Executive". There's a very big difference between an EADA and an ADA. -- MST ☆ R  (Chat Me!) 13:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

List of A Haunting episodes
Hello, Jabrona! Thanks for cleaning up the copyvioed summaries! There may some some close paraphrasing issues remaining, but at least it's not as bad as it was. As a volunteer, I don't feel especially obliged to clean up massive amounts of text that some editor simply lifted from another website with a few clicks. Immediately removing copyvios are what we are supposed to do, and cleaning up after them is secondary (at least to me). That being said: there is going to be a lot more cleaning up to do. It is clearly obvious that at least all of Season 4 was also lifted, this time from the Discovery Channel episode list conveniently provided at the bottom of the page. Compare the summaries here to the summaries here. Looks familiar, no? Word for word copyright violations, every one of them. I'm going to have to contact another editor on how to deal with this situation. The real laziness is pasting these copyvios in the first place, and rewriting each edit summary is a task I have neither the time nor inclination for. I'll let you have a crack at it before I call in an expert, but time is short once the copyvios are discovered, and they need to be removed or corrected ASAP. Cheers... Doc  talk  21:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! It looks like all of the episode summaries for all seasons were copied in the same way from the same site - very disappointing. Some episodes have been reworked (like "Demon Child"), but the vast majority seem to be lifted right from the site. Oh, boy... Doc   talk  21:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Time has run out for allowing the copyvios to remain. You've done some excellent work, and the sections you've rewritten have been much improved - thank you! I'm going to start tagging some other sections (like the entire Season 3, etc.) with Copypaste because we cannot allow the blatant copyright violations to stand. Please feel free to rewrite those sections as you did the others, because otherwise the content must be deleted. Cheers :> Doc   talk  07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glen (Child's Play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glenda (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) 11:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Television seasons
Greetings, Jabrona. Contrary to what you are being told by another editor, the use of the slash in recently changed television series article titles is not required, and is arguably not proper unless it is being used by reliable sources. Please see my comment on the MOS talk page (diff), as well as the recent change that was made to the applicable MOS section (diff). There was also an extended two-week discussion regarding the use of the dash vs. slash in very similar circumstances regarding sports seasons that overlap two calendar years on the same MOS talk page (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers). Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:A child called it.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:A child called it.jpg. 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) 04:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Curse of Chucky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alex Vincent (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) 10:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm Ryulong. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pokémon (anime), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed 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. ''Bulbagarden is not a reliable source and neither is Mania.com. Don't add anything back about the fandom backlash to the voice actor changes again, please.'' — Ryūlóng  ( 琉竜 ) 03:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juicy Fruit (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Let It Go (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) 08:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Have & Have Nots
-This is Season 3 Tyler Perry said it on Twitter and OWN TV said it on their Vine: https://vine.co/v/MHQ7rEPxWUE

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Pokémon: XY (season 2) episodes


A tag has been placed on List of Pokémon: XY (season 2) episodes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No consensus to split up the pokemon page.

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

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. —cyberpower  Chat:Online 15:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rings (2015 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ringu. 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) 08:58, 29 April 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) 14:00, 24 November 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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maniac Magee (film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Richard Lawson and Orlando Brown. 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) 09:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Maggie day
You didn't have to remove "present", sometimes in soap operas, they make It seem as if the characters are dead and they end up coming back. Zhyboo (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Somethings wrong with the format in the haves and the haves nots
I have went to many users, who have never responded and the tables in the haves and have nots article needs fixing. In the list of actors who are starring, the names are out of order and in the "cast and characters" section, Mitch should be listed as recurring in season 3, but someone forgot him. Also quita's name is right beside Maggie's name and hip. Please fix it, I use my phone to edit, my computers broken and needs repairment. Thanks if u can!! 😃😘💕 Zhyboo (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The format of the starring list is okay, but I still need you to add Mitch as recurring in season 3 on the character table Zhyboo (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

And they have Jennifer and Maggie listed as recurring in season 1, but they didn't appear until season 2 Zhyboo (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you get any of my messages??? 😕 Zhyboo (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hellooooooo?????? Zhyboo (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you available, now? I've been avoiding by you all day yesterday 😯 Zhyboo (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and don't forget to add mitchbas recurring in season 3 three on the table, there were a lot of errors made with the table Zhyboo (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"Mitch as" not "mitchbas" sorry Zhyboo (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget to add Mitch as "recurring" in season 3. There's were alot of mistakes made to the table. 1: adding war as "main" in season 4, but not as "guest" or "recurring" in season 2 and 3: corrected by TeamGale 2: adding erica as "recurring" instead of "guest" in season 3: corrected by me 3: adding Maggie and Jennifer as "recurring" in season 1 instead of 2: corrected by you and 4: adding Mitch as "main" in season 4, but not as "recurring" in season 3. This table has had more errors than any other table I've seen Zhyboo (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Haha, thanks!!! 😃😀 Zhyboo (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I discovered something else wrong with the table. They listed Mitch before war, Mitch and erica, but he appeared in the show after them. It should go in the order of war, mitch, eriva, then Mitch. Please add Mitch to the bottom of the table Zhyboo (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juicy (The Notorious B.I.G. song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World Trade Center. 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) 10:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forensic Files (season 15), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Thomas. 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) 10:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Jeepers Creepers 3 Release Date
Hi,

Are you the one who wrote the entry regarding JC 3 release date for Sep 25th? If so, are you Catwalk33 User from YouTube? It's funny because i was going to write the exact same entry as you did LOL. BTW, you didn't sign off on the entry and i;m a little pissed off that no one has said or done anything about this since when i write a Wikipedia entry without leaving a signature someone seems to find out and leaves a Wikipedia message or violation to me. Not fair... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas2017 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

March 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This is completely unacceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at A Nightmare on Elm Street. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. MrClog (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rockstone  talk to me!   23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Acroterion. As for you Jabrona, since you dared me to report your further attacks, I did, and now you are blocked indefinitely.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)