This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The request for mediation concerning WBBM-TV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
•
21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the
Mediation Committee.)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at WMAQ-TV, you may be blocked from editing. Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to document again for you what we have discussed previously.
I wish you luck and harmonious editing, check out that club if you need some more help.
-- WGFinley ( talk) 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I have been fighting this for some time now. Deconstructthis has not listened to reason regarding the importance of remembering those past staff members, and he mounted a wholesale campaign of simply deleting them. He started by going to the TV station articles that I wrote myself. When I appealed his deletions, I got jumped by 3 or 4 other Wiki editors who decided not to make an exception to what I perceive to be a ridiculous requirement. There is a way around it, though. Simply go to each station, and make each former staff member's name a link to a separate article. Then, they will have to be included, because his only claim was that they were unreferenced in Wikipedia. Any help you can be in this effort would be wonderful.. I think others who have discovered that they now don't have a link to former staff members at stations, would jump on the bandwagon. Csneed ( talk) 00:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at WMAQ-TV, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 02:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it would be. It would be creating articles, in violation of WP:POINT, that are non-notable and would be deleted anyway. I highly recommend you do not go forward with that plan of action. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Dana Adams requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the
the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Neutralhomer •
Talk •
07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Brad Goode requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the
the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Neutralhomer •
Talk •
07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Your behavior has been taken to ANI. See here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Your input is requested at the talk page of List of Days of our Lives cast members. Rm994 ( talk) 15:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at WMAQ-TV, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you vandalize any page again, you will be reported to AIV. STOP NOW. Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC) 02:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)\
From what I notice quickly everything looks correct. It would use 14 columns since there were 13 weeks plus a column for the contestants names. -- Jnorton7558 ( talk) 04:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I have found it.. it's the way to stop Deconstructthis and his libelous attempts to discontinue the "Former On-Air Staff" categories on TV stations. Go to the WATE-TV and WSYX-TV pages. See where I have entered my link to where I am working now. If it is done at every TV station (which may take a while), we can re-insert former staff members, and there's no way he'll have an argument to de-listing them, because there will be a link to where that person is now. The link has to look like mine under Former On-Air Staff or whatever the station has listed):
He can't get around it. We got him.. playinig his own Wiki game. hehe. Csneed ( talk) 16:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, I, myself cannot post the link above, because Wiki editors consider it "self-promotion." So apparently, if you post it, it's not self-promotion, because it isn't me doing it. Csneed ( talk) 01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Please do not copy and paste from other websites as you did here from the site Broadcasting Cable. WP:Copy-paste says, "In 99.9% of cases, you may not copy-paste text from other sources into Wikipedia (short quotations aside), because it would violate copyright and/or constitute plagiarism." Thank you. — Mike Allen 23:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, please check the official websites of Access Hollywood and E! News; I have noticed a copyright that seems to belong to NBCUniversal. See also the talk page by clicking here. CHAK 001 ( talk) 09:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see this "Talk:" page [section]. -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 03:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Please use the talk page before restoring the list of names at WGN-TV, as they don't belong in the article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Thank you. - Sudo Ghost 20:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I have regard on your decision to re-use the previous chart and the premiere dates are should not in the "Cycles" chart. The supposed to be "new" chart is used to follow on Survivor and Big Brother and several other American reality shows. ApprenticeFan work 23:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached. We've been through this before. The list of names is not notable. Please see the talk page before reverting the edits. Again, consensus has been reached. We can not list every employee that works at WBBM-TV, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, posting those names could potentially be a violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding living persons. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 20:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete or change cast members on the List of Days of our Lives cast members page until AFTER their last date. Per page rules, we do not change these. Rm994 ( talk) 05:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI, the same rules for the removal of cast members applies to the addition of them. We do not list them until AFTER Days has debuted in ALL areas. Rm994 ( talk) 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Having to continously go behind you and clean up is becoming quite tiresome. At this point, you should know better than to remove references just because of "how it looks". References are there to establish notability, and provide support for our articles. Unreferenced articles end up being deleted. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CITE. Thank you. Rm994 ( talk) 00:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Same goes with B&B. Just cause it aired in Canada, does not mean it's aired in US. B&B is a US soap, so we go by the US airdate. So therefore, he has not aired. Once again, patience my friend. You've been told for DAYS, why wouldn't the same go for B&B? Musicfreak7676 ( talk) 4:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
It might be of particular interest to you to read WP:OWN. Anyone can edit this site, and the fact that "you like to handle" the additions of new or returning characters is not reason to continue to add them before their debut date. Other editors have expressed concern about your continuous disregard of this rule, and if this behavior continues, it might be taken to administrators. I assure you, no one is going to "beat you to the punch"...and you'll still be able to help :) Rm994 ( talk) 02:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
One of Wikipedia's rules is that we don't include the future on templates and infobox . Since AMC hasn't aired its last episode yet, you can't say it is no longer on the air. Patience my friend. In only 3 hours, you'll have all the pleasure updating the templates and infobox. However, as per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, please don't include any informations about Prospect Park on them; only the informations about the run on ABC. Thank you for your understanding. Farine ( talk) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Despite claims by some soap opera websites, ABC has NOT released an exact date for the ending of One Life to Live nor has it for the beginning of The Revolution. The only thing that ABC has made official, thus far, is that all of theses changes will happen in January 2012.
In the case of One Life to Live, this isn't the first time that you are being notified about this behavior. So please do not add again theses bogus dates on articles unless you can back it up with a reliable source confirmed by ABC.
Thank you Farine ( talk) 21:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello there, I reverted your edits for WGN-TV, WLS-TV, WBBM-TV, WMAQ-TV, and WFLD because you removed all the references. Just like RM994 told you just days before they establish notability and editors can and will delete those sections. You may want to read WP:BLP, WP:NLIST, and WP:V to get you more familiarize. Bobjim45 ( talk) 19:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you chopped down the CW Network template. I restored the original that links to a lot of older shows and created a separate template for the current and upcoming. If you like these templates, please speak up at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_7#Network templates. They are on the verge of being deleted in a close debate.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sottolacqua ( talk) 11:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I have repeatedly asked you not to add/delete cast members until after they debut from List of Days of our Lives cast members. I am now turning you over to administrators and let them decide whether or not to let you continue editing here. Rm994 ( talk) 22:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for your time and assistance on the TV templates. Again they are under discussion. Since you seem to think they are a worthwhile time expenditure, I thought I would notify you of the TFD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Network_templates_2. Please comment there.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to WMAQ-TV. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bobjim45 ( talk) 03:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Please do not re-add unsourced statistics to this article without providing backup references that meet WP:VERIFY. Sottolacqua ( talk) 21:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Bachelor (US TV series), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Please do not remove references as you did in this edit Sottolacqua ( talk) 17:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm on to a page. Most of the users removed all of the statistics and average rankings. For clever as they are, they left one ******* piece of evidence that gives sloppy handwriting with the Nintendo 3DS Internet Browser. Create a page that holds DWTS rankings at once! -- Plankton5165 ( talk) 15:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You've recently added two actors that have agreed to join the show online with this edit, but you did not include any source for it. You did include a reference name. But without a url link to view the source, a reference target name means absolutely nothing.
Can you please add a source for your edit? If not, your edit will be reverted or deleted.
Thank you Farine ( talk) 23:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you continue to add unsourced material to articles, and I am letting you know that it is not advisable to do so. You could possibly be banned permanently from Wikipedia if you continue to add unsourced material on any page, including television stations. This is a heads up to stop doing what your doing right away. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop removing red links from articles ... they are perfectly acceptable per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Red (internal) links and exist to encourage the creation of new articles. When these articles are created, the links to them are already in place. Obviously infant actors will probably not have articles anytime soon and can be unlinked, but an adult actor could presumably be deserving of an article at some point in the future. That's why it's important to have red links. Soapfan2013 ( talk) 02:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Your input is requested at the talk page of List of Days of our Lives cast members. Rm994 ( talk) 19:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to remove all those cast members, especially if they're exiting. They still remain. And you've now created tons of work for someone (likely me) to go and revert all those edits. They can be removed once OLTL has left its broadcast history. And you can reply to this message, and not create an unrequired one on my page. Musicfreak7676 ( talk) 17:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop reverting this article to a version that contains large amounts of unsourced WP:IINFO/ WP:NOT#STATS. Formatting the Presenters and Judges section as tables with color-coded cells filled with diamonds decreases the readability of the article. Reintroducing the poorly formatted table in the Couples section is a duplication of what's already presented in List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors. Instead of edit warring and reverting this article to a version that fails to address many of the standards in WP:MOS and WP:VERIFY, please discuss your issues on the talk page. Sottolacqua ( talk) 12:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Listen, Soap Opera Digest over-rides Y&R man. The soap itself is not a creditable source. I've been yelled at changing things due to the soap and told they aren't credibtable themselves. DeGarmo, according to SOD is recurring. She's in a recurring gig. You can reply to this post to talk to me if you wish. But she's recurring and reporting me for vandalism? For all the times you've been yelled at? Really?? Musicfreak7676 ( talk) 16:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Musicfreak. I just felt that she should be left alone until the soap itself says she is recurring. I know you mean well as do I. I try to be the best editor on Wikipedia that I can be. I never intentionally put things on here just to vandalize. I find a lot of people put random names with no source all the time and as you can see I remove it immediately. Take care and have a good holiday :) TVFAN24 ( talk) 18:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Sottolacqua ( talk) 12:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Sottolacqua ( talk) 12:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions about the Revolution start date on the 2012 in American television article.
However, the source that you've added is an old article from April 2011 that doesn't say anything at all about The Revolution starting specifically in January 16, 2012. Can you please go add the proper source at this instant. Thank you. Farine ( talk) 22:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok I now added the proper source. TVFAN24 ( talk) 00:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia by inserting unsourced or poorly source content, as you did at One Life to Live with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Farine ( talk) 22:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings ... while I appreciate people discussing changes on a talk page instead of reverting continually, making a single statement and then going back and rearranging things the way you like them is just as bad. The better course of action would have been to leave everything as it was, regardless of its current form, then build consensus and then make the change after consensus has been reached. I know I specifically called out JackJackUK and Hzh, but your edit summary of "I Have Responded To The Discussion Board. Please Leave This As Is. Thank You" can be construed as edit-warring as well. As such, I highly suggest you read this section and consider yourself warned at the same level as the other two. Technically, since you've already had a Level 4 warning posted, I should report this as disruptive, but I'm trying to be fair; I haven't reported the other two, and I'm not reporting you ... yet. This needs to stop and it needs to stop now, so please leave things alone and talk it out. Thank you.
-- McDoob AU 93 19:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I tried. Since you decided to change the order without even trying to discuss this with fellow editors, I'm making this official ...
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- McDoob AU 93 23:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting concerned you are slipping into old habits of dictating the way things are on articles without discuss your changes with other editors. Please don't start down that road again. You need to work with other editors, propose reasons for your changes and engage in discussion and not just change them, get reverted, wait a while and change them again.
-- WGFinley ( talk) 00:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm inviting you into these discussions: [1] [2]. Figured you'd like to be included, as a big contributor to the soaps. Musicfreak7676 ( talk) 18:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, noticed you're returning to your old ways adding/removing people before the episode has aired. Just wanted to make sure you don't go down that path again. (You can reply here, not on my page) Happy Holidays! Musicfreak7676 ( talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You know better than to add unsourced info to articles as you did to List of Days of our Lives cast members. That source said nothing about Jai Rodriguez debuting in January. Rm994 ( talk) 00:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I see that you kept reverting to your own preferred way of listing names in the American Idol page, ignoring whatever that was stated in the discussion page. No one appears to support your position, and as I have said, you are wrong in your chronological ordering. Please respect what was discussed. Since others have disputed your position, please go to the discussion page to discuss further if you want any changes, don't do it when there is no support for you. Hzh ( talk) 20:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
American Idol. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Slow-motion edit wars are still edit wars, especially when consensus has pointed in another direction. Please do not change this again unless consensus has changed to say that your method is preferred. -- McDoob AU 93 18:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. — Kww( talk) 19:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
TVFAN24 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am very sorry. With the holidays and all, I forgot to check and I did not realize that there was a consensus on this issue. I promise not to revert again if you can please unblock me. Thank you. TVFAN24 ( talk) 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Editor has agreed to the following edit restrictions:
Please note that these restrictions must remain on your usertalk page until they are rescinded ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm not overwhelmed by your answer. How could you make the same relatively complicated edit six times and not be aware that you were making an edit that there wasn't consensus for?— Kww( talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Judging by Special:Contributions/98.223.95.42, you returned to bouncing back and forth between anonymous edits and this account on May 27, 2011 and did so until Daniel Case put a stop to it on Aug 5, 2011. Why did that happen? How does that jive with "If you look I have never engaged in that type of behavior again"?— Kww( talk) 04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm still not impressed by the original unblock, nor "I miss you guys" (this is not a social networking site), there are a few unblock conditions that I suggest you agree to in order to be unblocked at this time.
Do you agree to the above? ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely with the above conditions. I think that is very fair and I will completely abide by those rules. You don't have to worry about a problem coming from me again. I have learned my lesson and its not worth it. TVFAN24 ( talk) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Bwilkins for having faith in me and I will not let you down. There is still an autoblock? Is that why I can't edit for a day? TVFAN24 ( talk) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw your question. Are you saying that for example, there's a link to someone named Erica Screwdriver and you want to change it to Erica Screwdriver so that the one red link becomes two blue links? That would be a horrible thing to do: it would create the false impression that we had an article on Erica Screwdriver when in fact we do not.— Kww( talk) 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
No in other words just removing the link altogether since it links to something that has no article. In the past when I saw a red link for a person I would just unlink it because it is silly when an artilce for the person doesn't yet exist. Oh no I wasn't going to change it to two blue links thats ridiculous. TVFAN24 ( talk) 19:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
You added Anna Devane to the cast list before all areas aired the episode. It still has yet to air on the West Coast, but I'm allowing it to stay since there's only a short while before the episode airs. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 22:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but my clock said it was 00 Minutes. Can't help that my clock was off by a whole minute. I'll be sure to chage it. Thanks for letting me know. TVFAN24 ( talk) 22:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Your input is requested at the talk page of List of Days of our Lives cast members. Rm994 ( talk) 14:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know, CBS.com isn't the greatest source since it isn't third-party. It's the ultimate last resort for those kind of edits. Just letting you know, because you seem to have it stuck on the channel all the time. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 20:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Your input is requested at the talk page of Hope Brady or John Black (Days of our Lives). Rm994 ( talk) 17:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You know better than to remove sourced material without explaining a reason in the edit summary. Rm994 ( talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Same thing for articles about news personalities. I know other editors and I have warn you before about this. Bobjim45 ( talk) 04:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
When you add a source, can you actually add the full sourcing? And not just put it into the ref codes. If you notice, all are properly sourced, except the ones you continue to add. It'll save a lot of editing time. And make sure you direct the character to the correct page. Dr. Tim Reid has his own page on the 1990-99 decade page. And you can reply here on your page, I'll be checking for a possible response. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 19:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It was never confirmed she was put on contract, nor does Jen even want a contract. She enjoys the flexibility of being on recurring status. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 19:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Why did you remove Brett Butler? And why did you add Téa when she was already added? Téa is under contract and was already added. Pay attention please. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 21:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The request for mediation concerning WBBM-TV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
•
21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the
Mediation Committee.)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at WMAQ-TV, you may be blocked from editing. Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to document again for you what we have discussed previously.
I wish you luck and harmonious editing, check out that club if you need some more help.
-- WGFinley ( talk) 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I have been fighting this for some time now. Deconstructthis has not listened to reason regarding the importance of remembering those past staff members, and he mounted a wholesale campaign of simply deleting them. He started by going to the TV station articles that I wrote myself. When I appealed his deletions, I got jumped by 3 or 4 other Wiki editors who decided not to make an exception to what I perceive to be a ridiculous requirement. There is a way around it, though. Simply go to each station, and make each former staff member's name a link to a separate article. Then, they will have to be included, because his only claim was that they were unreferenced in Wikipedia. Any help you can be in this effort would be wonderful.. I think others who have discovered that they now don't have a link to former staff members at stations, would jump on the bandwagon. Csneed ( talk) 00:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at WMAQ-TV, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 02:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it would be. It would be creating articles, in violation of WP:POINT, that are non-notable and would be deleted anyway. I highly recommend you do not go forward with that plan of action. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Dana Adams requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the
the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Neutralhomer •
Talk •
07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Brad Goode requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the
the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Neutralhomer •
Talk •
07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 07:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Your behavior has been taken to ANI. See here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Your input is requested at the talk page of List of Days of our Lives cast members. Rm994 ( talk) 15:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at WMAQ-TV, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you vandalize any page again, you will be reported to AIV. STOP NOW. Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC) 02:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)\
From what I notice quickly everything looks correct. It would use 14 columns since there were 13 weeks plus a column for the contestants names. -- Jnorton7558 ( talk) 04:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I have found it.. it's the way to stop Deconstructthis and his libelous attempts to discontinue the "Former On-Air Staff" categories on TV stations. Go to the WATE-TV and WSYX-TV pages. See where I have entered my link to where I am working now. If it is done at every TV station (which may take a while), we can re-insert former staff members, and there's no way he'll have an argument to de-listing them, because there will be a link to where that person is now. The link has to look like mine under Former On-Air Staff or whatever the station has listed):
He can't get around it. We got him.. playinig his own Wiki game. hehe. Csneed ( talk) 16:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, I, myself cannot post the link above, because Wiki editors consider it "self-promotion." So apparently, if you post it, it's not self-promotion, because it isn't me doing it. Csneed ( talk) 01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Please do not copy and paste from other websites as you did here from the site Broadcasting Cable. WP:Copy-paste says, "In 99.9% of cases, you may not copy-paste text from other sources into Wikipedia (short quotations aside), because it would violate copyright and/or constitute plagiarism." Thank you. — Mike Allen 23:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, please check the official websites of Access Hollywood and E! News; I have noticed a copyright that seems to belong to NBCUniversal. See also the talk page by clicking here. CHAK 001 ( talk) 09:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see this "Talk:" page [section]. -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 03:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Please use the talk page before restoring the list of names at WGN-TV, as they don't belong in the article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Thank you. - Sudo Ghost 20:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I have regard on your decision to re-use the previous chart and the premiere dates are should not in the "Cycles" chart. The supposed to be "new" chart is used to follow on Survivor and Big Brother and several other American reality shows. ApprenticeFan work 23:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached. We've been through this before. The list of names is not notable. Please see the talk page before reverting the edits. Again, consensus has been reached. We can not list every employee that works at WBBM-TV, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, posting those names could potentially be a violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding living persons. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 20:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not delete or change cast members on the List of Days of our Lives cast members page until AFTER their last date. Per page rules, we do not change these. Rm994 ( talk) 05:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI, the same rules for the removal of cast members applies to the addition of them. We do not list them until AFTER Days has debuted in ALL areas. Rm994 ( talk) 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Having to continously go behind you and clean up is becoming quite tiresome. At this point, you should know better than to remove references just because of "how it looks". References are there to establish notability, and provide support for our articles. Unreferenced articles end up being deleted. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CITE. Thank you. Rm994 ( talk) 00:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Same goes with B&B. Just cause it aired in Canada, does not mean it's aired in US. B&B is a US soap, so we go by the US airdate. So therefore, he has not aired. Once again, patience my friend. You've been told for DAYS, why wouldn't the same go for B&B? Musicfreak7676 ( talk) 4:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
It might be of particular interest to you to read WP:OWN. Anyone can edit this site, and the fact that "you like to handle" the additions of new or returning characters is not reason to continue to add them before their debut date. Other editors have expressed concern about your continuous disregard of this rule, and if this behavior continues, it might be taken to administrators. I assure you, no one is going to "beat you to the punch"...and you'll still be able to help :) Rm994 ( talk) 02:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
One of Wikipedia's rules is that we don't include the future on templates and infobox . Since AMC hasn't aired its last episode yet, you can't say it is no longer on the air. Patience my friend. In only 3 hours, you'll have all the pleasure updating the templates and infobox. However, as per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, please don't include any informations about Prospect Park on them; only the informations about the run on ABC. Thank you for your understanding. Farine ( talk) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Despite claims by some soap opera websites, ABC has NOT released an exact date for the ending of One Life to Live nor has it for the beginning of The Revolution. The only thing that ABC has made official, thus far, is that all of theses changes will happen in January 2012.
In the case of One Life to Live, this isn't the first time that you are being notified about this behavior. So please do not add again theses bogus dates on articles unless you can back it up with a reliable source confirmed by ABC.
Thank you Farine ( talk) 21:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello there, I reverted your edits for WGN-TV, WLS-TV, WBBM-TV, WMAQ-TV, and WFLD because you removed all the references. Just like RM994 told you just days before they establish notability and editors can and will delete those sections. You may want to read WP:BLP, WP:NLIST, and WP:V to get you more familiarize. Bobjim45 ( talk) 19:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you chopped down the CW Network template. I restored the original that links to a lot of older shows and created a separate template for the current and upcoming. If you like these templates, please speak up at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_7#Network templates. They are on the verge of being deleted in a close debate.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sottolacqua ( talk) 11:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I have repeatedly asked you not to add/delete cast members until after they debut from List of Days of our Lives cast members. I am now turning you over to administrators and let them decide whether or not to let you continue editing here. Rm994 ( talk) 22:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for your time and assistance on the TV templates. Again they are under discussion. Since you seem to think they are a worthwhile time expenditure, I thought I would notify you of the TFD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Network_templates_2. Please comment there.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to WMAQ-TV. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bobjim45 ( talk) 03:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Please do not re-add unsourced statistics to this article without providing backup references that meet WP:VERIFY. Sottolacqua ( talk) 21:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Bachelor (US TV series), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Please do not remove references as you did in this edit Sottolacqua ( talk) 17:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm on to a page. Most of the users removed all of the statistics and average rankings. For clever as they are, they left one ******* piece of evidence that gives sloppy handwriting with the Nintendo 3DS Internet Browser. Create a page that holds DWTS rankings at once! -- Plankton5165 ( talk) 15:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You've recently added two actors that have agreed to join the show online with this edit, but you did not include any source for it. You did include a reference name. But without a url link to view the source, a reference target name means absolutely nothing.
Can you please add a source for your edit? If not, your edit will be reverted or deleted.
Thank you Farine ( talk) 23:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you continue to add unsourced material to articles, and I am letting you know that it is not advisable to do so. You could possibly be banned permanently from Wikipedia if you continue to add unsourced material on any page, including television stations. This is a heads up to stop doing what your doing right away. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop removing red links from articles ... they are perfectly acceptable per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Red (internal) links and exist to encourage the creation of new articles. When these articles are created, the links to them are already in place. Obviously infant actors will probably not have articles anytime soon and can be unlinked, but an adult actor could presumably be deserving of an article at some point in the future. That's why it's important to have red links. Soapfan2013 ( talk) 02:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Your input is requested at the talk page of List of Days of our Lives cast members. Rm994 ( talk) 19:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to remove all those cast members, especially if they're exiting. They still remain. And you've now created tons of work for someone (likely me) to go and revert all those edits. They can be removed once OLTL has left its broadcast history. And you can reply to this message, and not create an unrequired one on my page. Musicfreak7676 ( talk) 17:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop reverting this article to a version that contains large amounts of unsourced WP:IINFO/ WP:NOT#STATS. Formatting the Presenters and Judges section as tables with color-coded cells filled with diamonds decreases the readability of the article. Reintroducing the poorly formatted table in the Couples section is a duplication of what's already presented in List of Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) competitors. Instead of edit warring and reverting this article to a version that fails to address many of the standards in WP:MOS and WP:VERIFY, please discuss your issues on the talk page. Sottolacqua ( talk) 12:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Listen, Soap Opera Digest over-rides Y&R man. The soap itself is not a creditable source. I've been yelled at changing things due to the soap and told they aren't credibtable themselves. DeGarmo, according to SOD is recurring. She's in a recurring gig. You can reply to this post to talk to me if you wish. But she's recurring and reporting me for vandalism? For all the times you've been yelled at? Really?? Musicfreak7676 ( talk) 16:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Musicfreak. I just felt that she should be left alone until the soap itself says she is recurring. I know you mean well as do I. I try to be the best editor on Wikipedia that I can be. I never intentionally put things on here just to vandalize. I find a lot of people put random names with no source all the time and as you can see I remove it immediately. Take care and have a good holiday :) TVFAN24 ( talk) 18:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Sottolacqua ( talk) 12:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Sottolacqua ( talk) 12:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions about the Revolution start date on the 2012 in American television article.
However, the source that you've added is an old article from April 2011 that doesn't say anything at all about The Revolution starting specifically in January 16, 2012. Can you please go add the proper source at this instant. Thank you. Farine ( talk) 22:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok I now added the proper source. TVFAN24 ( talk) 00:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia by inserting unsourced or poorly source content, as you did at One Life to Live with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Farine ( talk) 22:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings ... while I appreciate people discussing changes on a talk page instead of reverting continually, making a single statement and then going back and rearranging things the way you like them is just as bad. The better course of action would have been to leave everything as it was, regardless of its current form, then build consensus and then make the change after consensus has been reached. I know I specifically called out JackJackUK and Hzh, but your edit summary of "I Have Responded To The Discussion Board. Please Leave This As Is. Thank You" can be construed as edit-warring as well. As such, I highly suggest you read this section and consider yourself warned at the same level as the other two. Technically, since you've already had a Level 4 warning posted, I should report this as disruptive, but I'm trying to be fair; I haven't reported the other two, and I'm not reporting you ... yet. This needs to stop and it needs to stop now, so please leave things alone and talk it out. Thank you.
-- McDoob AU 93 19:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I tried. Since you decided to change the order without even trying to discuss this with fellow editors, I'm making this official ...
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- McDoob AU 93 23:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting concerned you are slipping into old habits of dictating the way things are on articles without discuss your changes with other editors. Please don't start down that road again. You need to work with other editors, propose reasons for your changes and engage in discussion and not just change them, get reverted, wait a while and change them again.
-- WGFinley ( talk) 00:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm inviting you into these discussions: [1] [2]. Figured you'd like to be included, as a big contributor to the soaps. Musicfreak7676 ( talk) 18:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, noticed you're returning to your old ways adding/removing people before the episode has aired. Just wanted to make sure you don't go down that path again. (You can reply here, not on my page) Happy Holidays! Musicfreak7676 ( talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You know better than to add unsourced info to articles as you did to List of Days of our Lives cast members. That source said nothing about Jai Rodriguez debuting in January. Rm994 ( talk) 00:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I see that you kept reverting to your own preferred way of listing names in the American Idol page, ignoring whatever that was stated in the discussion page. No one appears to support your position, and as I have said, you are wrong in your chronological ordering. Please respect what was discussed. Since others have disputed your position, please go to the discussion page to discuss further if you want any changes, don't do it when there is no support for you. Hzh ( talk) 20:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
American Idol. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Slow-motion edit wars are still edit wars, especially when consensus has pointed in another direction. Please do not change this again unless consensus has changed to say that your method is preferred. -- McDoob AU 93 18:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. — Kww( talk) 19:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
TVFAN24 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am very sorry. With the holidays and all, I forgot to check and I did not realize that there was a consensus on this issue. I promise not to revert again if you can please unblock me. Thank you. TVFAN24 ( talk) 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Editor has agreed to the following edit restrictions:
Please note that these restrictions must remain on your usertalk page until they are rescinded ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm not overwhelmed by your answer. How could you make the same relatively complicated edit six times and not be aware that you were making an edit that there wasn't consensus for?— Kww( talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Judging by Special:Contributions/98.223.95.42, you returned to bouncing back and forth between anonymous edits and this account on May 27, 2011 and did so until Daniel Case put a stop to it on Aug 5, 2011. Why did that happen? How does that jive with "If you look I have never engaged in that type of behavior again"?— Kww( talk) 04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm still not impressed by the original unblock, nor "I miss you guys" (this is not a social networking site), there are a few unblock conditions that I suggest you agree to in order to be unblocked at this time.
Do you agree to the above? ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely with the above conditions. I think that is very fair and I will completely abide by those rules. You don't have to worry about a problem coming from me again. I have learned my lesson and its not worth it. TVFAN24 ( talk) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Bwilkins for having faith in me and I will not let you down. There is still an autoblock? Is that why I can't edit for a day? TVFAN24 ( talk) 16:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw your question. Are you saying that for example, there's a link to someone named Erica Screwdriver and you want to change it to Erica Screwdriver so that the one red link becomes two blue links? That would be a horrible thing to do: it would create the false impression that we had an article on Erica Screwdriver when in fact we do not.— Kww( talk) 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
No in other words just removing the link altogether since it links to something that has no article. In the past when I saw a red link for a person I would just unlink it because it is silly when an artilce for the person doesn't yet exist. Oh no I wasn't going to change it to two blue links thats ridiculous. TVFAN24 ( talk) 19:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
You added Anna Devane to the cast list before all areas aired the episode. It still has yet to air on the West Coast, but I'm allowing it to stay since there's only a short while before the episode airs. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 22:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but my clock said it was 00 Minutes. Can't help that my clock was off by a whole minute. I'll be sure to chage it. Thanks for letting me know. TVFAN24 ( talk) 22:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Your input is requested at the talk page of List of Days of our Lives cast members. Rm994 ( talk) 14:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know, CBS.com isn't the greatest source since it isn't third-party. It's the ultimate last resort for those kind of edits. Just letting you know, because you seem to have it stuck on the channel all the time. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 20:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Your input is requested at the talk page of Hope Brady or John Black (Days of our Lives). Rm994 ( talk) 17:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You know better than to remove sourced material without explaining a reason in the edit summary. Rm994 ( talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Same thing for articles about news personalities. I know other editors and I have warn you before about this. Bobjim45 ( talk) 04:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
When you add a source, can you actually add the full sourcing? And not just put it into the ref codes. If you notice, all are properly sourced, except the ones you continue to add. It'll save a lot of editing time. And make sure you direct the character to the correct page. Dr. Tim Reid has his own page on the 1990-99 decade page. And you can reply here on your page, I'll be checking for a possible response. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 19:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It was never confirmed she was put on contract, nor does Jen even want a contract. She enjoys the flexibility of being on recurring status. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 19:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Why did you remove Brett Butler? And why did you add Téa when she was already added? Téa is under contract and was already added. Pay attention please. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 21:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)