Been a decent few years, met some decent people, some not so much. Thankyou to those of you who were good towards me.
Hello, Esuka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!-- Biografer ( talk) 19:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I see you're an editor that knows their way around the ratings for television series. I edit a lot of articles for series, but have never understood ratings, so I'm wondering if you could help complete the table at Draft:Better Call Saul (season 1)#Ratings? It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! -- Alex TW 22:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I added some more content to the production section. Is the section good enough now. If not, then how far is it?, Thanks. The Optimistic One ( talk) 03:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Just so you know, I restored your recent edits after I figured out what Amaury was objecting to and found a reference that confirmed season 2's tenth episode was indeed the season finale. Thanks for your contributions to the article... and to Wikipedia generally! — Joeyconnick ( talk) 01:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The series doesn't exist anymore because it got cancelled but okay! Powderkegg ( talk) 22:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
My issue isn't that I can't discuss it, it's the fact that no one is willing to face the facts on said issue, and instead of people actually reading the discussion, they're saying "Not enough people say you're right about these facts, so shut the fuck up they did nothing wrong. Oh by the way we're better users than you and our reversions are better than yours so we get to say we're not involved. You're the only edit warrer na na na na na na", instead of actually contributing to the discussion and understanding that what they keep putting back doesn't belong. And they wonder why I'm so frustrated. -- Harmony944 ( talk) 18:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Esuka323, Just thought I'd drop you a line to thank you for your support today. It doesn't always happen on here but when it does I am always grateful. We edit many of the same articles (not surprising as television seems to be a common interest) so I am constantly seeing the good work you do. Please keep on doing what you're doing. I'd also thought I'd tell you that I don't think I'll be editing Succession. It really kills me to stop editing an article I've put so much work into but I honestly don't have the stomach to engage with aggressive editors. There are still a number of "problematic" edits that were made that I wish I could fix but I honestly don't want to go anywhere near that article right now. My concern is that I'll get drawn into another conflict and honestly it is just exhausitng not to mention that it wastes time I could be spending working on more important topics/issues. I hope you'll keep an eye on it and fight any random vandals should they pop up. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page anytime. Have a nice evening, BoogerD ( talk) 05:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for editing your comment. That wasn’t my intention. I’m working with the desktop look of Wikipedia’s editing software on a mobile device so I’d have access to the bolding, italicizing, and comment signing features that mobile editing does not make easy. I must’ve placed my cursor in the wrong place then hit a heading insert by mistake and didn’t even see where I left the cursor. I meant no harm-- Sarcathmo17 ( talk) 03:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Esuka323. Regarding the WP:AN3 complaint, do you have a diff where Matt14451 admits to being the IP user? EdJohnston ( talk) 23:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Why was my amendments vandalism, the new project was announced today and I sourced all of it? Im going to have to report you for vandalism to the higher-ups, I'm sorry but you don't have any excuse and this is a clear abuse of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.186.181.228 ( talk) 12:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Still need back up here – very likely that the named account is socking as the IP here, but I can't revert again. As my edit summary clearly shows, what they're adding to the article is not supported by current sourcing. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey Esuka323,
I was hoping you might take a look at the article for the new television series Camping. There seems to be some disagreement over there regarding whether or not ratings under a million should be written out with two decimal places or three decimal places. You are essentially the television ratings guy around here (as far as I am concerned) so I was hoping you might help out over there. Let me know. Sincerely, BoogerD ( talk) 16:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Esuka323,
Given that we have such a history editing alongside each other on numerous television-related articles, I was hoping you might have a look at an issue/conflict that has arisen over at Heathers. What it boils down to, at least as far as I can see, is that the information that another editor has contributed, and that I am contesting, is unsourced. Additionally, it does not fall into the same sense of verifiability as the cast and character sections or episode summaries do as the information being presented cannot merely be verified by watching the content of episode or its onscreen credits. I have other issues with the content but that is major sticking point. You can see the discussion had thus far over on the article's history and its talk page (found here Talk:Heathers (TV series)#Edit conflict). I'd love to get some outside opinion because, as I'm sure you know, one call victim to short-sided and not realize when they may be in error. I hope you can be help of here and to hear from you soon. Sincerely, BoogerD ( talk) 22:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey Esuka323, I'm having another issue over at Into the Dark where another editor is insisting on adding column to the show's episode table that lists each episode's runtime. I pointed out that, that information is already included in the infobox and that nothing in the MOS or WP supports the notion of including it in the table. He went ahead and reverted and you can guess where its gone from there. I was hoping you might take a look at it so that I might avoid getting embroiled in an edit war. Thanks! – BoogerD ( talk) 16:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again. Having an issue over at Draft:The Sword in the Stone (upcoming film) where another editor is attempting to have a draft I created back in July 2018 deleted because he believes it to be at the wrong title. He believes the correct title for the draft should be (2019 film) even though there has been no confirmation from a reliable, secondary source as to when the film will premiere. A third editor created a basically copied-and-pasted new draft yesterday and the first editor is trying to have it essentially replace the original one that I created. Please see Draft talk:The Sword in the Stone (upcoming film) for a discussion that the first editor initiated. – BoogerD ( talk) 06:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Esuka323. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey Esuka323,
I was hoping you might do me another favor and take a look at the most recent edit over at the article Returning the Favor. Another editor has consistently attempted to remove an entire section of the article regarding accolades/awards that the series has received. The awarding organization "Got Your 6" has partnered with various entertainment companies such as 21st Century Fox, NBCUniversal, CBS, HBO, Viacom and Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Lionsgate, A+E Networks, Live Nation Entertainment, UTA, 44 Blue, The Ebersol Lanigan Company, DreamWorks Animation, Endemol Shine North America, and Valhalla Entertainment. The awarding event was reported on by Variety as seen here: https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/got-your-6-veterans-the-gifted-disjointed-1202607620/. The other editor has argued that the paragraph/section of the article should be removed and cited General Notability Guidelines and Undue Weight as an issue. I may be in the wrong here but I am of the belief that the information warrants mentioning in the article given the stature of the organization within the entertainment industry and the fact that the awards event was covered by a major publication (being Variety). I don't know...maybe give the article and its edit history a look and let me know what you think. – BoogerD ( talk) 02:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Esuka323,
I was wondering if you might take a look at a discussion (see here Wikipedia:Teahouse#Secondary sources on episode lists) that I've been pulled into in the last two days. An editor recently removed an episode table from an article I was working on citing a lack of sourcing. However, in the last year-and-a-half of serious editing I've been doing on here, I've been led to believe that such sourcing of titled, directors, writers, and airdates were unnecessary if the episodes of said series have already aired or been released. The two editors engaged in the discussion have stated that this is not the case so I am hoping if you, and potentially other in the WP:TV community might be able to help here. Thanks, BoogerD ( talk) 04:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up...might need to go through the pages that I've edited in the past. I'm pretty sure that when I've added Awards and nominations sections that I've put them in the middle. It might be worth going through some the pages you and I frequent to double check. I've already started to go through some to change them. Thanks for correcting me! – BoogerD ( talk) 23:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:CITEVAR, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." The article was written with a specific citation style when it was created and then edited of the course of many months. After the series began airing, new references were added to source the ratings for each episode. However, they did not adhere to the citation style/formatting that had already been established. Also, we have gotten along very, very well over the last year, please don't rush to accuse me of edit warring when I've reverted once. I enjoy working with you and I'd appreciate it if you didn't dismiss what I was saying out of hand and claim "You have no grounds to alter." without specifying why you believe that is the case. I am sure the two of us can deal with this issue civilly and come out the other end the same as we started. You are one of the few consistently reliable editors that I can of turning to when issues arrive here or there and I wouldn't want anything to happen to ruin that dynamic. Sincerely, BoogerD ( talk) 02:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Warriors (TV series)#The end of the year. — Lbtocth talk 19:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Esuka323,
First off, thank you for all of your diligent work over at the Murphy Brown and Murphy Brown (season 11) articles. I will say it is such a poor use of time for editors on here to have to be dealing with those who are clearly not here not to truly contribute or work with others. I am messaging you in order request that you might take a look at the most recent edits over at Who Is America. An editor is insisting on reformatting all of the short summaries in the episode table with bullet points instead of in the paragraph form that the article has been using. They have brought up Saturday Night Live as a means of defending their reasoning as the season articles for that show use bullet points. However, those articles use bullet points to list trivial information found in each episode and they do not list ever single individual sketch. I'm not sure it is written so explicitly that short summaries are to be written in single paragraphs but that has largely, as I'm sure you know, been the case. I will say, for instance, that other episode tables in other television series articles don't bullet point different subplots in given episode. It's just not done. No one has objected to the article, being Who Is America, following typical television series formatting and this other editor doesn't seem to be making a convincing case to change it to a format that is almost never used. Not sure where you'll fall on the issue but I'll hope you'll give it a look. I'd go ahead and revert the editor again myself, including the points I've made here, but I believe I've reached the three reverts limit. Get back to me when you can. – BoogerD ( talk) 04:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey Esuka323,
Sorry to message you again so soon. Quick question. Do you know if there is anything in WP or the MOS regarding the formatting of article titles when it comes to like a television series with a possessive title? For instance, Jack Ryan was moved from it's original official title of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan. One editor explained to me that it was due to WP:COMMONNAME though I took a look at that again and couldn't find anything in it regarding possessive titles. I'm creating a new article with a similar title structure and I'm trying to figure out if it is against Wikipedia to have a possessive title. Hope to hear what you think. – BoogerD ( talk) 04:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
A discussion has been opened at WT:MOS#Bulletizing episode summaries at Who Is America? resulting from edits that you made at Who Is America?. Accordingly, your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey Esuka,
Hoping you might take a look at another little instance of an editor raising hell over a non-issue. For the last two days there has been an editor over at Homecoming that has been debating whether the series is single-camera or multi-camera. I would understand one's insistence in having a source for such information before a series is released, when it might be possible to not know one way or the other, but once a series has premiered it is generally clear which set-up is used and such is information is covered by WP:PRIMARY, being the series itself. I think the editor is confused and is under the impression that single-camera setup implies that only one camera is ever used to film any given scene. Obviously that is not the case, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of film knows that in many situations in film and television more than one camera is utilized to increase the "coverage" in a scene. "Multi-camera" vs "Single-camera" rather refers to the specific setup of cameras and the construction of sets. In a multi-camera sitcom, you'll have a set with three walls and there will be three cameras setup in a specific formation all pointing at the same thing. In a single-camera, you will usually have a full four-walled set and the camera setup generally involves one camera situated somewhere in the set. Though, in single-camera you may also have other cameras utilized for close-ups or wide shots but the basic "setup" of the series is still single-camera as it is defined in film and television production. Anyways, myself and Drovethrughosts have reverted the editor a few times and I am concerned at this point of passing the threshold into edit warring. Hope you might take a look at the situation and intervene if necessary. Of all the big hullabaloos around here in the last few weeks this one seems to be the most cut and dry. Hoping your new year is good thus far, BoogerD ( talk) 20:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Esuka,
I'm messaging you though to take a look at a film article I was editing today: My Spy. Currently in a dispute with another editor over content in the article. I had included writing in the article regarding various producers on the film sourced to Deadline and Hollywood Reporter articles. However, the other editor removed the content as they said the information was "irrelevant". When I objected and pointed out that that was a more opinion-based reasoning rather than anything based in WP or MOS policy they responded by saying, "Relevant according to you. I conceded on some aspects of your edit but Wikipedia is a collaboration. I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you. Additionally, i express the film’s titled because, before that date it was unknown. What is your reason for not noting it?" I'm trying to proceed with caution here and avoid an edit war. Perhaps, you'll take a look at the article. Get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD ( talk) 23:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials. — YoungForever (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I did not realized I removed the ratings by accident until you reverted me. I am not sure how that happened. — YoungForever (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Esuka,
Would you mind taking a look at this most recent edit ( [1]) over at the article for Returning the Favor? I believe we had discussed the issue of sourcing for episode tables and whether the series itself provided sourcing for the episode table. I know on the numerous, numerous television series articles that we edit that it is common practice to remove sourcing (from websites like The Futon Critic for instance) after an episode or season has aired. I believe in the past that you and another editor had suggested that completely removing the information was disruptive and that if anything was to be done adding a tag might be appropriate (though I'm not sure that is true given the fact that literally every article I've contributed to on here does not source episodes once they've aired). Please get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you, I'd love to resolve this issue promptly. – BoogerD ( talk) 21:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry, I thought you swapped out the original source. — YoungForever (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Esuka,
This ip address strikes again including personal attacking and hounding me. Have you encounter this ip address recently on disruptive editing? This ip address is known to be a problematic editor. — YoungForever (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
What exactly am I supposed to see in this? The Ozzy Mandias ( talk) 22:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey Esuka,
Can you help watch this page? I have reverted twice in less than 24 hours from disruptive editing (an ip address keep saying the series was not canceled when it was canceled with a reliable source). —
YoungForever
(talk) 18:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Esuka,
Can you help watch this page? Clearly, one editor is disruptive editing. She repeatedly remove the Episode table just because they don't have episode summaries. According to
MOS:TVEPISODELIST, episode titles, directors, writers, and released/airdate, are enough for an Episode table. —
YoungForever
(talk) 00:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why you insist on presenting the episode summaries as walls of text, as you have already done twice [2] [3]. The summaries are much easier to read when different segments are presented in different paragraphs. Banana Republic ( talk) 22:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:YoungForever#Another Life (2019 TV series). Anything you want to add? I noticed you sometimes do Reception so, you maybe familiar with this. — YoungForever (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Esuka,
Can you watch this article? An editor keep adding incorrect information of characters the article. I have reverted the editor twice already as I watch the series and even double checked. —
YoungForever
(talk) 23:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Esuka,
Can you keep an eye on this? An editor keep on adding full name of a character and that's not how she is credited at all. When she was cast, she was only credited by her nickname. —
YoungForever
(talk) 16:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mindhunter (TV series)#Requests for comment (RfC) for Sonny Valicenti. — YoungForever (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not something that absolutely has to be changed in the article. People could always wait until its confirmed for sure.It wasn't the case. An ip address boldly changed it which was why the whole discussion started. — YoungForever (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Our Boys (miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacob Cohen ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Take a look at this. It's ever-growing. The three newest additions today: AlextheWhovian, StopBrexit and Tyandi. -- / Alex/ 21 14:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the edit! The article's much better now. Can't believe such a trivial change was reverted. -- / Alex/ 21 14:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Radiphus ( talk) 13:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is the official CBS of Mom (TV series) [4] which says the episode title is "Audrey Hepburn and a Jalapeño Pepper", not "Popper". This is a primary source. iTunes is a secondary source. But, then you said on YouTube where the series is run by Warner Bros. Television says Popper. I honestly don't know which one is correct. — YoungForever (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe https://twitter.com/casanvar/status/1187744919345127425?s=21 ? – xeno talk 14:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand why some editors continuously pushing to add them when MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC explain why audience/user ratings are not appropriate to use on Wikipedia articles already. — YoungForever (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I have asked you to retract your accusation of sock-puppetry from where you made it at AN:EW. You have refused,, using - at best - crap logic to support your view. Perhaps you were unaware of - you know - basic IP addressing, but a simple Google check would note that the IP 46.226.190.219 geolocates to the Isle of Man, in the UK - a bit further from my location in the Chicago metro area. Seems a bit of a commute, right?
I am going to ask you - once again - to apologize for the accusation. If you don't, I am going to insist on a checkuser to be run on myself. When it comes back as negative, I am going to immediately seek your block for making an enormously destructive accusation, as it taints any edit the user makes from that point unless they are cleared. Please do not consider this a threat; it is an absolute promise. I will not wait very long for you to respond before acting. -
Jack Sebastian (
talk) 04:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Jack Sebastian ( talk) 05:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. El_C 05:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Just because I couldn't straight up prove he's socked doesn't mean he isn't guilty either. That is not an acceptable manner in which conduct oneself. El_C 12:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Regardless when it was made, it shows that another admin also considered your accusation to be an aspersion. No, the warning came from the user to whom you made the accusation. They asked for an apology, which you were not obliged to give. But you were obliged to stop from leveling the accusation again, which you failed to do. Again, hence the block. El_C 13:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You said I violated a warning made by another admin— I did not say that. Again, the warning came from the editor who was the target of your repeated accusations of socking. You chose to ignore that warning and continued with the accusations, even right here in this very conversation. Sorry, but that reflects poorly on you. El_C 13:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston had already issued such a caution. I didn't specify the when. El_C 13:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Just because I couldn't straight up prove he's socked doesn't mean he isn't guilty either. Those accusations have no place on Wikipedia outside from the designated SPI request. El_C 14:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
blocking me does nothing more than stroke your own ego? El_C 14:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You were already given that chance when Jack Sebastian asked you to stop accusing him of socking. But rather than self-correcting, you doubled down. El_C 15:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
would achieve nothing as I'm sure in your time here you have made many friends among the admin who would back up even the most poorest judgements you have made, is unfounded. El_C 15:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
hey esuka, just reaching out to suggest you simply withdraw your allegation of multiple account misuse and agree not to repeat it. probably you could be unblocked at that point, as a block would no longer serve any preventative purpose. – xeno talk 15:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, bud. Miss your work for WP:TV! If you're still monitoring your page, maybe think about making it a wikibreak instead of a retirement? I had a three month break from editing last year, best thing I've ever done, I came back completely refreshed. All the best with everything else you set your mind to.
-- /
Alex/
21 08:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm tempted to advocate for you to come back to named-account editing, but ultimately it's your choice. Happy trails. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Been a decent few years, met some decent people, some not so much. Thankyou to those of you who were good towards me.
Hello, Esuka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!-- Biografer ( talk) 19:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I see you're an editor that knows their way around the ratings for television series. I edit a lot of articles for series, but have never understood ratings, so I'm wondering if you could help complete the table at Draft:Better Call Saul (season 1)#Ratings? It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! -- Alex TW 22:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I added some more content to the production section. Is the section good enough now. If not, then how far is it?, Thanks. The Optimistic One ( talk) 03:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Just so you know, I restored your recent edits after I figured out what Amaury was objecting to and found a reference that confirmed season 2's tenth episode was indeed the season finale. Thanks for your contributions to the article... and to Wikipedia generally! — Joeyconnick ( talk) 01:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The series doesn't exist anymore because it got cancelled but okay! Powderkegg ( talk) 22:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
My issue isn't that I can't discuss it, it's the fact that no one is willing to face the facts on said issue, and instead of people actually reading the discussion, they're saying "Not enough people say you're right about these facts, so shut the fuck up they did nothing wrong. Oh by the way we're better users than you and our reversions are better than yours so we get to say we're not involved. You're the only edit warrer na na na na na na", instead of actually contributing to the discussion and understanding that what they keep putting back doesn't belong. And they wonder why I'm so frustrated. -- Harmony944 ( talk) 18:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Esuka323, Just thought I'd drop you a line to thank you for your support today. It doesn't always happen on here but when it does I am always grateful. We edit many of the same articles (not surprising as television seems to be a common interest) so I am constantly seeing the good work you do. Please keep on doing what you're doing. I'd also thought I'd tell you that I don't think I'll be editing Succession. It really kills me to stop editing an article I've put so much work into but I honestly don't have the stomach to engage with aggressive editors. There are still a number of "problematic" edits that were made that I wish I could fix but I honestly don't want to go anywhere near that article right now. My concern is that I'll get drawn into another conflict and honestly it is just exhausitng not to mention that it wastes time I could be spending working on more important topics/issues. I hope you'll keep an eye on it and fight any random vandals should they pop up. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page anytime. Have a nice evening, BoogerD ( talk) 05:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for editing your comment. That wasn’t my intention. I’m working with the desktop look of Wikipedia’s editing software on a mobile device so I’d have access to the bolding, italicizing, and comment signing features that mobile editing does not make easy. I must’ve placed my cursor in the wrong place then hit a heading insert by mistake and didn’t even see where I left the cursor. I meant no harm-- Sarcathmo17 ( talk) 03:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Esuka323. Regarding the WP:AN3 complaint, do you have a diff where Matt14451 admits to being the IP user? EdJohnston ( talk) 23:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Why was my amendments vandalism, the new project was announced today and I sourced all of it? Im going to have to report you for vandalism to the higher-ups, I'm sorry but you don't have any excuse and this is a clear abuse of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.186.181.228 ( talk) 12:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Still need back up here – very likely that the named account is socking as the IP here, but I can't revert again. As my edit summary clearly shows, what they're adding to the article is not supported by current sourcing. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey Esuka323,
I was hoping you might take a look at the article for the new television series Camping. There seems to be some disagreement over there regarding whether or not ratings under a million should be written out with two decimal places or three decimal places. You are essentially the television ratings guy around here (as far as I am concerned) so I was hoping you might help out over there. Let me know. Sincerely, BoogerD ( talk) 16:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Esuka323,
Given that we have such a history editing alongside each other on numerous television-related articles, I was hoping you might have a look at an issue/conflict that has arisen over at Heathers. What it boils down to, at least as far as I can see, is that the information that another editor has contributed, and that I am contesting, is unsourced. Additionally, it does not fall into the same sense of verifiability as the cast and character sections or episode summaries do as the information being presented cannot merely be verified by watching the content of episode or its onscreen credits. I have other issues with the content but that is major sticking point. You can see the discussion had thus far over on the article's history and its talk page (found here Talk:Heathers (TV series)#Edit conflict). I'd love to get some outside opinion because, as I'm sure you know, one call victim to short-sided and not realize when they may be in error. I hope you can be help of here and to hear from you soon. Sincerely, BoogerD ( talk) 22:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey Esuka323, I'm having another issue over at Into the Dark where another editor is insisting on adding column to the show's episode table that lists each episode's runtime. I pointed out that, that information is already included in the infobox and that nothing in the MOS or WP supports the notion of including it in the table. He went ahead and reverted and you can guess where its gone from there. I was hoping you might take a look at it so that I might avoid getting embroiled in an edit war. Thanks! – BoogerD ( talk) 16:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again. Having an issue over at Draft:The Sword in the Stone (upcoming film) where another editor is attempting to have a draft I created back in July 2018 deleted because he believes it to be at the wrong title. He believes the correct title for the draft should be (2019 film) even though there has been no confirmation from a reliable, secondary source as to when the film will premiere. A third editor created a basically copied-and-pasted new draft yesterday and the first editor is trying to have it essentially replace the original one that I created. Please see Draft talk:The Sword in the Stone (upcoming film) for a discussion that the first editor initiated. – BoogerD ( talk) 06:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Esuka323. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey Esuka323,
I was hoping you might do me another favor and take a look at the most recent edit over at the article Returning the Favor. Another editor has consistently attempted to remove an entire section of the article regarding accolades/awards that the series has received. The awarding organization "Got Your 6" has partnered with various entertainment companies such as 21st Century Fox, NBCUniversal, CBS, HBO, Viacom and Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Lionsgate, A+E Networks, Live Nation Entertainment, UTA, 44 Blue, The Ebersol Lanigan Company, DreamWorks Animation, Endemol Shine North America, and Valhalla Entertainment. The awarding event was reported on by Variety as seen here: https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/got-your-6-veterans-the-gifted-disjointed-1202607620/. The other editor has argued that the paragraph/section of the article should be removed and cited General Notability Guidelines and Undue Weight as an issue. I may be in the wrong here but I am of the belief that the information warrants mentioning in the article given the stature of the organization within the entertainment industry and the fact that the awards event was covered by a major publication (being Variety). I don't know...maybe give the article and its edit history a look and let me know what you think. – BoogerD ( talk) 02:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Esuka323,
I was wondering if you might take a look at a discussion (see here Wikipedia:Teahouse#Secondary sources on episode lists) that I've been pulled into in the last two days. An editor recently removed an episode table from an article I was working on citing a lack of sourcing. However, in the last year-and-a-half of serious editing I've been doing on here, I've been led to believe that such sourcing of titled, directors, writers, and airdates were unnecessary if the episodes of said series have already aired or been released. The two editors engaged in the discussion have stated that this is not the case so I am hoping if you, and potentially other in the WP:TV community might be able to help here. Thanks, BoogerD ( talk) 04:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up...might need to go through the pages that I've edited in the past. I'm pretty sure that when I've added Awards and nominations sections that I've put them in the middle. It might be worth going through some the pages you and I frequent to double check. I've already started to go through some to change them. Thanks for correcting me! – BoogerD ( talk) 23:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:CITEVAR, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." The article was written with a specific citation style when it was created and then edited of the course of many months. After the series began airing, new references were added to source the ratings for each episode. However, they did not adhere to the citation style/formatting that had already been established. Also, we have gotten along very, very well over the last year, please don't rush to accuse me of edit warring when I've reverted once. I enjoy working with you and I'd appreciate it if you didn't dismiss what I was saying out of hand and claim "You have no grounds to alter." without specifying why you believe that is the case. I am sure the two of us can deal with this issue civilly and come out the other end the same as we started. You are one of the few consistently reliable editors that I can of turning to when issues arrive here or there and I wouldn't want anything to happen to ruin that dynamic. Sincerely, BoogerD ( talk) 02:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Warriors (TV series)#The end of the year. — Lbtocth talk 19:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Esuka323,
First off, thank you for all of your diligent work over at the Murphy Brown and Murphy Brown (season 11) articles. I will say it is such a poor use of time for editors on here to have to be dealing with those who are clearly not here not to truly contribute or work with others. I am messaging you in order request that you might take a look at the most recent edits over at Who Is America. An editor is insisting on reformatting all of the short summaries in the episode table with bullet points instead of in the paragraph form that the article has been using. They have brought up Saturday Night Live as a means of defending their reasoning as the season articles for that show use bullet points. However, those articles use bullet points to list trivial information found in each episode and they do not list ever single individual sketch. I'm not sure it is written so explicitly that short summaries are to be written in single paragraphs but that has largely, as I'm sure you know, been the case. I will say, for instance, that other episode tables in other television series articles don't bullet point different subplots in given episode. It's just not done. No one has objected to the article, being Who Is America, following typical television series formatting and this other editor doesn't seem to be making a convincing case to change it to a format that is almost never used. Not sure where you'll fall on the issue but I'll hope you'll give it a look. I'd go ahead and revert the editor again myself, including the points I've made here, but I believe I've reached the three reverts limit. Get back to me when you can. – BoogerD ( talk) 04:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey Esuka323,
Sorry to message you again so soon. Quick question. Do you know if there is anything in WP or the MOS regarding the formatting of article titles when it comes to like a television series with a possessive title? For instance, Jack Ryan was moved from it's original official title of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan. One editor explained to me that it was due to WP:COMMONNAME though I took a look at that again and couldn't find anything in it regarding possessive titles. I'm creating a new article with a similar title structure and I'm trying to figure out if it is against Wikipedia to have a possessive title. Hope to hear what you think. – BoogerD ( talk) 04:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
A discussion has been opened at WT:MOS#Bulletizing episode summaries at Who Is America? resulting from edits that you made at Who Is America?. Accordingly, your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey Esuka,
Hoping you might take a look at another little instance of an editor raising hell over a non-issue. For the last two days there has been an editor over at Homecoming that has been debating whether the series is single-camera or multi-camera. I would understand one's insistence in having a source for such information before a series is released, when it might be possible to not know one way or the other, but once a series has premiered it is generally clear which set-up is used and such is information is covered by WP:PRIMARY, being the series itself. I think the editor is confused and is under the impression that single-camera setup implies that only one camera is ever used to film any given scene. Obviously that is not the case, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of film knows that in many situations in film and television more than one camera is utilized to increase the "coverage" in a scene. "Multi-camera" vs "Single-camera" rather refers to the specific setup of cameras and the construction of sets. In a multi-camera sitcom, you'll have a set with three walls and there will be three cameras setup in a specific formation all pointing at the same thing. In a single-camera, you will usually have a full four-walled set and the camera setup generally involves one camera situated somewhere in the set. Though, in single-camera you may also have other cameras utilized for close-ups or wide shots but the basic "setup" of the series is still single-camera as it is defined in film and television production. Anyways, myself and Drovethrughosts have reverted the editor a few times and I am concerned at this point of passing the threshold into edit warring. Hope you might take a look at the situation and intervene if necessary. Of all the big hullabaloos around here in the last few weeks this one seems to be the most cut and dry. Hoping your new year is good thus far, BoogerD ( talk) 20:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Esuka,
I'm messaging you though to take a look at a film article I was editing today: My Spy. Currently in a dispute with another editor over content in the article. I had included writing in the article regarding various producers on the film sourced to Deadline and Hollywood Reporter articles. However, the other editor removed the content as they said the information was "irrelevant". When I objected and pointed out that that was a more opinion-based reasoning rather than anything based in WP or MOS policy they responded by saying, "Relevant according to you. I conceded on some aspects of your edit but Wikipedia is a collaboration. I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you. Additionally, i express the film’s titled because, before that date it was unknown. What is your reason for not noting it?" I'm trying to proceed with caution here and avoid an edit war. Perhaps, you'll take a look at the article. Get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD ( talk) 23:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials. — YoungForever (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I did not realized I removed the ratings by accident until you reverted me. I am not sure how that happened. — YoungForever (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Esuka,
Would you mind taking a look at this most recent edit ( [1]) over at the article for Returning the Favor? I believe we had discussed the issue of sourcing for episode tables and whether the series itself provided sourcing for the episode table. I know on the numerous, numerous television series articles that we edit that it is common practice to remove sourcing (from websites like The Futon Critic for instance) after an episode or season has aired. I believe in the past that you and another editor had suggested that completely removing the information was disruptive and that if anything was to be done adding a tag might be appropriate (though I'm not sure that is true given the fact that literally every article I've contributed to on here does not source episodes once they've aired). Please get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you, I'd love to resolve this issue promptly. – BoogerD ( talk) 21:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry, I thought you swapped out the original source. — YoungForever (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Esuka,
This ip address strikes again including personal attacking and hounding me. Have you encounter this ip address recently on disruptive editing? This ip address is known to be a problematic editor. — YoungForever (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
What exactly am I supposed to see in this? The Ozzy Mandias ( talk) 22:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey Esuka,
Can you help watch this page? I have reverted twice in less than 24 hours from disruptive editing (an ip address keep saying the series was not canceled when it was canceled with a reliable source). —
YoungForever
(talk) 18:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Esuka,
Can you help watch this page? Clearly, one editor is disruptive editing. She repeatedly remove the Episode table just because they don't have episode summaries. According to
MOS:TVEPISODELIST, episode titles, directors, writers, and released/airdate, are enough for an Episode table. —
YoungForever
(talk) 00:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why you insist on presenting the episode summaries as walls of text, as you have already done twice [2] [3]. The summaries are much easier to read when different segments are presented in different paragraphs. Banana Republic ( talk) 22:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:YoungForever#Another Life (2019 TV series). Anything you want to add? I noticed you sometimes do Reception so, you maybe familiar with this. — YoungForever (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Esuka,
Can you watch this article? An editor keep adding incorrect information of characters the article. I have reverted the editor twice already as I watch the series and even double checked. —
YoungForever
(talk) 23:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Esuka,
Can you keep an eye on this? An editor keep on adding full name of a character and that's not how she is credited at all. When she was cast, she was only credited by her nickname. —
YoungForever
(talk) 16:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mindhunter (TV series)#Requests for comment (RfC) for Sonny Valicenti. — YoungForever (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not something that absolutely has to be changed in the article. People could always wait until its confirmed for sure.It wasn't the case. An ip address boldly changed it which was why the whole discussion started. — YoungForever (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Our Boys (miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacob Cohen ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Take a look at this. It's ever-growing. The three newest additions today: AlextheWhovian, StopBrexit and Tyandi. -- / Alex/ 21 14:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the edit! The article's much better now. Can't believe such a trivial change was reverted. -- / Alex/ 21 14:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Radiphus ( talk) 13:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is the official CBS of Mom (TV series) [4] which says the episode title is "Audrey Hepburn and a Jalapeño Pepper", not "Popper". This is a primary source. iTunes is a secondary source. But, then you said on YouTube where the series is run by Warner Bros. Television says Popper. I honestly don't know which one is correct. — YoungForever (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe https://twitter.com/casanvar/status/1187744919345127425?s=21 ? – xeno talk 14:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand why some editors continuously pushing to add them when MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC explain why audience/user ratings are not appropriate to use on Wikipedia articles already. — YoungForever (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I have asked you to retract your accusation of sock-puppetry from where you made it at AN:EW. You have refused,, using - at best - crap logic to support your view. Perhaps you were unaware of - you know - basic IP addressing, but a simple Google check would note that the IP 46.226.190.219 geolocates to the Isle of Man, in the UK - a bit further from my location in the Chicago metro area. Seems a bit of a commute, right?
I am going to ask you - once again - to apologize for the accusation. If you don't, I am going to insist on a checkuser to be run on myself. When it comes back as negative, I am going to immediately seek your block for making an enormously destructive accusation, as it taints any edit the user makes from that point unless they are cleared. Please do not consider this a threat; it is an absolute promise. I will not wait very long for you to respond before acting. -
Jack Sebastian (
talk) 04:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Jack Sebastian ( talk) 05:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. El_C 05:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Just because I couldn't straight up prove he's socked doesn't mean he isn't guilty either. That is not an acceptable manner in which conduct oneself. El_C 12:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Regardless when it was made, it shows that another admin also considered your accusation to be an aspersion. No, the warning came from the user to whom you made the accusation. They asked for an apology, which you were not obliged to give. But you were obliged to stop from leveling the accusation again, which you failed to do. Again, hence the block. El_C 13:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You said I violated a warning made by another admin— I did not say that. Again, the warning came from the editor who was the target of your repeated accusations of socking. You chose to ignore that warning and continued with the accusations, even right here in this very conversation. Sorry, but that reflects poorly on you. El_C 13:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
EdJohnston had already issued such a caution. I didn't specify the when. El_C 13:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Just because I couldn't straight up prove he's socked doesn't mean he isn't guilty either. Those accusations have no place on Wikipedia outside from the designated SPI request. El_C 14:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
blocking me does nothing more than stroke your own ego? El_C 14:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You were already given that chance when Jack Sebastian asked you to stop accusing him of socking. But rather than self-correcting, you doubled down. El_C 15:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
would achieve nothing as I'm sure in your time here you have made many friends among the admin who would back up even the most poorest judgements you have made, is unfounded. El_C 15:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
hey esuka, just reaching out to suggest you simply withdraw your allegation of multiple account misuse and agree not to repeat it. probably you could be unblocked at that point, as a block would no longer serve any preventative purpose. – xeno talk 15:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, bud. Miss your work for WP:TV! If you're still monitoring your page, maybe think about making it a wikibreak instead of a retirement? I had a three month break from editing last year, best thing I've ever done, I came back completely refreshed. All the best with everything else you set your mind to.
-- /
Alex/
21 08:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm tempted to advocate for you to come back to named-account editing, but ultimately it's your choice. Happy trails. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)