User talk:IJBall

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

List of films based on television programs

Pinging Geraldo Perez – this is more a reminder to myself than to you, Geraldo: but the WP:SCOPE of List of films based on television programs looks like it needs to be (massively?) narrowed. Right now it's including a bunch of what are basically TV movies in the list (including some TV movies that basically aired as episodes of these series – e.g. I just removed Shake It Up: Made In Japan which should not have been included under any circumstances!). That list should be narrowed to just theatrically-released films that are based on TV series. FWIW. (And, again, this is more a reminder to myself...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• See also: List of television spin-offs to do the same. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC) ‎
• And: Lists of actors by television series is another cleanup job... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

— YoungForever^(talk) is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be 2021. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

108.20.196.98 and TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52

I don't remember the previous IP that did it (I think it was last year), but the "nee" vandal is back. Also, with regard to the latter, I am not sure what to do. They've gotten plenty of final warnings, it's not even funny. I tried reporting them once to AIAV, but action was obviously not taken. Magitroopa gave them yet another final warning not too long ago. Amaury • 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: On another note, I am so disappointed with the results on Isabela Moner (I am still going to use and link to Moner) because people don't understand how things work. This isn't like J.J. Totah -> Josie Totah. That one makes sense for obvious reasons, as does Lady Gaga, but Isabela Moner has obviously not gone through what Josie Totah has and is nowhere near as famous as Lady Gaga—and I'm not saying the latter to be rude, just starting the facts—likewise for Breanna Yde, who's also nowhere that famous, which someone tried to move a long time ago. Amaury • 18:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Amaury: TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 is a problematic editor. Most of the time, the editor is adding WP:SYNTH information. For example, adding number of episodes for the season and the season finale date using The Futon Critic, but The Futon Critic for series still have "??? episodes" next to the current season and it also did not state the season finale date. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The later was previously blocked by Admin Drmies. If they persist with the disruptive editing (and what they are doing clearly looks like exactly that to me), then that's where I would go, rather than WP:AIV (which is hit or miss). Otherwise, I would take it to WP:ANI (where the odds of success are even lower than AIV). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop reverting me for no reason.

You were incorrect and I showed you that.Simonrankin (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Simonrankin: Yeah, that's not how it works at all. "I am right!" gets you nothing on Wikipedia, outside "style guides" hold no sway here, and edit warring can get you blocked. I advise you review WP:Bold, revert, discuss, and please self-revert in the meantime. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

For the fourth time now, it's right here. Please stop making mistakes and edit warring. That can get you blocked.Simonrankin (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Which part of "outside "style guides" hold no sway here" do you not understand? Which part of "you should discuss when you are reverted" do you not understand? And which part of claiming ""I am right!" gets you nothing on Wikipedia" is unclear? But, please, keep up with how you've been going – you won't last long around here. P.S. If you have nothing more to add than more of the same, then please don't post on my Talk page any longer – I will simply revert you if you're just going to keep going with the "I am right!" stuff. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave this to you. Amaury • 16:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not for an article I don't care about. But once again clearly an incorrect interpretation of the MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ooh. Double negatives, I should report you for that. Add: Likewise, though. I only have in on my list from reverting the user. Amaury • 16:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury and Geraldo Perez: Simonrankin now appears to be block evading while editing as a logged out IP: 142.165.85.254. Geolocates to Regina, Sask., Canada. Please keep an eye out for this – if they keep it up, we should report the IP to AIV as block evasion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Update: IP has continued to EW, so I have reported the IP to AIV as block evasion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

There's an interesting pattern here, in which they revert at least six times on one page, before moving down the list to continue their disruption at other pages they disrupted as their now blocked account. Amaury • 01:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, IJBall. So we were correct that the named account was a sockpuppet, it was just of a different user. See User:Simonrankin, which an admin recently created with an SPI tag. Amaury • 01:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting – Cebr1979 used to frequent soap opera articles where I ran across them before (but where I managed not to trigger their WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior). The recent activity bears no resemblance to that. I have to assume the checkusers know what they're doing, and the IP's listed at the LTA page all do geolocate to Canada, so I guess it fits. But this surprises me... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

To update: another IP in the same recent range, 142.165.85.41, has now been blocked as well. I have also requested semi-protection for all three articles at WP:RfPP because Cebr1979 does not look to be Dropping the stick and walking away from this. (Interesting that at least one other editor also reverted Cebr on the same grounds of MOS:DATERANGE – it's good to see that other editors agree on the common sense of this!) Anyway, we'll need to continue to keep an eye out on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Add 207.47.182.57 to the "IP sock of Cebr1979" list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this going to be the new Orchomen? Amaury • 18:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Worse – Cebr1979 has been around a long time, and has an unbelievable WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality: they are incapable of dropping the stick. This will basically be "whack a mole" until all of the IP holes are plugged. Orchomen, by contrast, operates in furious bursts, but doesn't seem to stick around much, and has been gone for a whole now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Hunter Street episodes

I'm contemplating merging this back into the main article, and this is taking into account the fourth season that is supposedly coming at some point. While it meets the metrics to be a standalone episode list—split when second season information is available (and it's clearly past that), which I still follow, or the series has at least 40 episodes (two seasons' worth of episodes), which it clearly is and is what you follow more—there are no episode summaries. And it seems apparent no one's interested in adding them. Thoughts? Amaury • 19:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: Without more extensive episode summaries, for every episode of the series, I would advise merging the contents to List of Hunter Street episodes to the Hunter Street (TV series) article, yes. The one caveat is this supposed fourth season (that may or may not exist) – if the airing of a fourth season comes to pass, and it ends up being another 20–30 episodes, then that would tend to justify leaving a separate LoE article... So, with that in mind, I would wait some time (until summer?) before carrying out any potential merge. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Kelly (Australian TV series) copyvio tag

Hi! I noticed you added the potential copyvio tag back in 2019. I can't seem to track down the source; do you think you could remember where you suspected it came from? Thanks in advance and kind regards, Sennecaster (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sennecaster: According to the diff of my edit, I suspected the series' 'Plot' summary may have been taken from IMDb. If it was not, the tag can be removed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, though I have a feeling that IMDb may have been the one to copy us... The majority of the wiki plot summary is from 2008, and it doesn't seem to copy or even close para on inspection. Thanks for tagging though! Sennecaster (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hm...

This seems suspicious. Just a bit. A random IP randomly showing up at a discussion that's been closed for ages? And either way, they clearly didn't read, as just like the other discussions we've had a bazillion times, such as with Zoey 101, Henry Danger, Bella and the Bulldogs, Best Friends Whenever, Game Shakers, etc., Amazon and iTunes sells the episodes in question for this and the series mentioned above as single episodes. That's what we go by. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that. We're not just arbitrarily doing stuff. If these were two separate episodes that just aired back-to-back for the premiere, Amazon and iTunes would sell them as two separate episodes, like they do for Andi Mack's series premiere, which was actually two episodes aired back-to-back for the premiere, but for all of these other series, they don't sell them as such and sell them as a single episodes. Therefore, they're single episodes, whether it's this, "Sky Whale," "Cyd and Shelby Strike Back," or what have you. Amaury • 17:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion, for what it's worth. Regardless of the IP's legitimacy, there had been no comments since December 18, so the discussion was clearly over and the result was clear that the current way is correct. Reviving the discussion was pointless. Amaury • 17:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Young Rock

I have seen every episode since the beginning. Why are you trying to refrain me from making changes. It was the mistakes I was fixing and I already explained in my last edit that the main cast bill is not correct.2603:9000:A003:9D00:94A6:1606:BEC1:2792 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's see: You're just coming off a year-long block from which you have seemed to learn nothing, nearly all of the edits you have been doing are wrong, I've now already fixed the one correct thing you did... oh, and you've been edit warring over these wrong edits to boot!... If you actually want to stick around this time, you're actually going to have to discuss the changes you are trying to make, and you're going to have to realize that a lot of them are going to be rejected based on the content of your recent edits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, I'm Kp2016rockin. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, ICarly (upcoming TV series), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. kpgamingz (rant me) 16:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the "Day of Fools"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful isn't it? (Except when the IP users ruins the fun with vandals) kpgamingz (rant me) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:‎Historyday01

I'm scratching my head on their edits at both Chicken Girls [1] and Cobra Kai [2], changing the classification of them both from streaming series to either web series or no adjective at all in front of "series". I remember there being some discussion somewhere regarding use of "web series", and perhaps deprecating it, but not sure where. Anyway, are those edits correct terminology? MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

They reverted themselves at Cobra Kai [3]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've put web series back at Chicken Girls – it meets all the definitions for that. I would not consider it a "streaming series" like Cobra Kai. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Finally made some progress...

I am fully caught up with Raven's Home. Only a million more things to go: All of the 2020 premieres for Disney Channels sans Raven's Home, of course, and the very first 2020 episode of Gabby Duran & the Unsittables, most of the 2020 episodes for Nickelodeon (I watched through January for Henry Danger), and most of the 2020 episodes for the broadcast networks: both the comedies and dramas. This is going to take forever. Add: And obviously the 2021 premieres to date. Amaury • 03:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Olivia Rodrigo

I corrected the recently added photo's formatting per our norms, though I question if the photo is fair use/attributed properly. Geraldo Perez? Amaury • 00:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Thanks! Amaury • 00:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making the format of the author's names in Olivia Rodrigo's references consistent, as they were not consistent before I edited the article. Would you also like to make the date formats and italicization of Billboard consistent? I'm happy to help if you like. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Just remember that if you're going to do edits like this, you need to check the article's earliest revisions to make sure you're not running afoul of WP:DATERET and WP:CITEVAR – it's an easy step to forget: lot's of editors, even veteran ones, do forget to check (myself included, sometimes)... Feel free to fix Billboard. As for the date formats, they should now display in the RETAIN'ed format, so it may be less important to go through and actually change the refs to match what's displayed – it's up to you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It seemed that most references in the article were using last/first format, so it's possible that a change in consensus had been achieved per WP:CITEVAR prior to my edit. My goal was to have a consistent style per WP:CITESTYLE. I've fixed Billboard. However, some reference dates display in MDY format, while others display in YYYY-MM-DD format. GoingBatty (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no, not without a discussion, esp. because the reference scripts default to last/first author format and can only be changed from that "manually" and most editors don't pay attention to any of that. And, yes – for refs, 'date' in MDY format, and 'access-date' YYYY-MM-DD format, is specifically allowed (see MOS:DATEUNIFY) and several of us do that on purpose because the most important part of the date feature of 'access-date' is when a ref was last updated which means year is the most important part of the date for that... But, bottom line, you shouldn't change any of this without discussion as per WP:DATERET and WP:CITEVAR – original article editors get to choose the formats, and those shouldn't be changed without a strong consensus to do so. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Will need more eyes here. Doggy's edit was fine at a second look, but the article is literally titled SOUR, all in caps, so any links should be as such. WP:NOTBROKEN complete applies, so MaranoFan's edit was incorrect, and I believe you've reverted them before for different reasons at, I believe, this article. Amaury • 19:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was all in caps before C.Fred moved it, which I just noticed. As such, I will now digress here as I trust C. Fred's judgment. Amaury • 19:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Amaury, chill with the extreme overreaction. The album is called Sour (the flavor), not an abbreviation: "SOUR" . Your edit was incorrect and you reached three reverts, then came here to seek a tag-teamer instead of opening a discussion on the talk page. I assure you I am not the one who needs an eye kept on them. Get a grip.--NØ 19:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read my updated response above, you would have seen that I digress because I noticed the article had been moved. When I last looked at it, it was titled "SOUR." If you had mentioned that in your second to last edit at the article, we could have each avoided our last two edits. Amaury • 19:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Jade Pettyjohn

Hello. Is there anything wrong with the info box I added there? Thanks. Martinc1994 (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes – Infoboxes should not be implemented at articles "just because other articles have them". Infoboxes should only be added when there's enough content to summarize that use of Infobox is justified. Currently, use of one at Jade Pettyjohn is not justified because there's not enough info to summarize to justify one. IOW, most Stub and "short-Start" class (BLP) articles will not need, and do not justify, having an Infobox. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Curious question

If you were in charge of a network—let's say, for argument's sake, Nickelodeon—unlike what most networks do, I'm sure you would be fair and give each currently running series a fair amount of airtime in terms of repeats while the series is airing. My question is, once the series ends, how long would you continue to air repeats of the series? Two years, five years, et cetera? And would you treat each former series the same or would it depend on the series? Regardless of the answer to the previous question, would you air repeats of former series during the day or more during the late night to early morning hours (say, 11:00 PM to 6:00 AM) to allow for repeats of currently airing series during the day? Amaury • 23:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to think about this in terms of TeenNick, which is actually the channel I watch for Nick stuff. Nick itself doesn't seem to rerun stuff very long (outside of SpongeBob which they rerun far too much, and maybe a few other animated shows), which I'm not sure is smart. (But they know SB reruns get ratings, so, whatever...) In the case of TeenNick, I wish they kept some stuff longer – they've basically stopped running shows from the 2000s (except for the occasional Drake & Josh), which is too bad as the channel could definitely use more variety (esp. on weekends), and I'd love to see something like Ned's Declassified... again. But TeenNick doesn't seem to run anything pre-Victorious these days, outside of iCarly (which they also over-rerun). Of course, the other issue is the stuff they don't rerun, like Knight Squad (I still don't understand why TeenNick never reran the second season of this! it's very frustrating). But they rerun a lot of Henry Danger, some Thundermans and Game Shakers, and they've now started airing some of the new shows like Danger Force, Side Hustle, and even Drama Club and The Barbarian and the Troll, which I appreciate as I wouldn't see these otherwise... So, anyway, I'd like to see them rerun even older stuff, esp. so they aren't running iCarly all the time as they seem to these days. But I think streaming and Paramount+ has killed any chance of this, unfortunately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

List of episodes/characters articles

This doesn't seem to be on all of them, as it's not there, or at least not as noticeable, on List of Henry Danger episodes, but it does appear to be there on the majority of pages. Have you noticed that extra whitespace is appearing now between where it says "a list-class article..." (or whatever type of class it is) and the first thing of prose? See, for example, List of Henry Danger characters and List of Bunk'd episodes. The parent articles appear to be unaffected and have the normal amount of spacing between the two aforementioned things. Amaury • 17:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: Clearly some technical issue going on. I just looked at the beginning part of List of Austin & Ally episodes along with List of Bunk'd episodes, and there is probably side-effects from template interaction. The two articles have two identical templates at the beginning before the prose ... {{Short description}} and {{Italic title}} ... but the Austin & Ally one has {{Use mdy dates}} in between, and that LoE doesn't have the extra whitespace, while the Bunk'd one does. I did notice the {{Short description}} content was recently edited [4]; I wonder if that's the problem. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone reported this yet? It is still an issue as of this morning, and if a template editor messed up, that should be reported back to them to fix this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

So...

Disney Fam Jam, in my opinion, for all intents and purposes, is basically Nickelodeon's version of Lip Sync Battle Shorties. Now, obviously, there are some differences.

Lip Sync Battle Shorties:

• Two hosts
• Three groups, featuring only children, competing against each other
• Three performances, with more emphasis on lip syncing
• Four featured songs—three for each performance and one as a closing song to the program
• A closing song, as mentioned above
• Special guests at the end of the program
• Two short seasons—10 episodes each

I'm not including the pilot here, which was double-length and had four performances and five featured songs, if I recall correctly. I can't remember 100% if the pilot had a closing song or if all five songs featured were for performances, but regardless, I'm not including the pilot in the above.

Disney Fam Jam

• Three hosts
• Two families competing against each other
• Two performances, with more emphasis on dancing
• Three featured songs—one at the beginning during a practice routine, with both families dancing to the selected song, and two for both performances, with both families dancing separately to their respective songs
• No closing song is used—it's just the program's theme music
• No special guests at the end of the program
• Regular-sized season for the first season—19 episodes

Matador Content produces both, so that may explain part of it. The latter even features some of the same songs from the former. On another note, I'm going to guess that there's an unaired pilot for Disney Fam Jam, as there's an episode with production code 120, but only 19 episodes aired in the first season. Amaury • 06:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hunter Street season 4

Also Amaury- Obviously we still have no word/clue on what is going on with the series in the US, but it appears to be premiering season 4 in the UK on April 19. The full first episode of season 4 (labelled as a 'sneak peek') is here. Can't view it in the US, but I have a Google Chrome VPN extension, so I am able to view it. Should be noted that the video is from the official (verified, checkmark and stuff) Nickelodeon UK YouTube channel.

From the description of the video: An Unexpected Guest: It’s summer, and Oliver and Anika have a whole new mystery on their hands – figuring out who their real dad is! But an unexpected guest and an invitation to a high-tech summer school sends them in a different direction.

Opening credits are included in the video as well-

• Starring Kyra Smith, Kate Bensdorp, and Eliyha Altena
• Created by Melle Runderkamp and Reint Schölvinck
• Produced by Rogier Visser, Frank Jan Horst, and Willem Zijlstra
• Head writer Diane Whitley
• Directed by Erwin Van Den Eshof

I've also recorded the very end of it + credits if that proves to be useful, viewable here (no VPN needed for this).

Hope this is all helpful... Magitroopa (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like this is the promo for season 4 as well. Magitroopa (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Per recent reverts to the article, MPFitz1968 as well. Magitroopa (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

My take? Nothing on this should be added to the article unless secondary sourcing for it can be found. So that means finding a British source or sources announcing/confirming the premiere in the UK – that will be tough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where it is in terms of reliability/trustworthiness, but could Radio Times be possible, as in this? Currently lists the first four episodes ("An Unexpected Guest", "Babies, Bunnies and Beards", "Sally Hunter", and "Quantum Problems and Dead Ends") for April 19-22. My only other idea would be using the Amazon UK page if/when the new episodes are added- though I would think the 'sneak peek' I had mentioned from the official Nickelodeon UK YouTube channel would work (the description also says, "Catch season 4 of Hunter Street, from Monday 19th April, on Nickelodeon!"...) Magitroopa (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Radio Times is UK's "TV Guide" – that's a primary source in my book, unless it's actually an article on the show. What I'd like to see is an actual article (secondary source) on season #4 and its premiere. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah... that's indeed the tough part of this. Will note that I found (I believe) the website for Blooming Media, the production company behind the series, with some information (here and here).

Most notably:

• "Aired in more than 120 countries – Fourth season in pre-production!"
• "Stay tuned for the fourth season that is in development right now!"
• "Blooming at work during the Covid19 pandemic – As most companies find themselves dealing with the worldwide corona lockdowns at this moment, Blooming managed to create a doable workflow in full respect of the current strict corona regulations, having allowed us to shoot our new season (4) of the Nickelodeon International hitseries Hunter Street in the past months. More productions are scheduled for shooting in the coming months..."

But yeah, in terms of secondary sourcing, the only things I've been able to find are fan-posts on social media, or articles from NickALive, which is very much WP:NOTRS. Only other possibility would be the show premiering here and getting some articles on it through the US premiere, but seems pretty unlikely with how it moved to TeenNick and its very minimal advertising/promotions. Magitroopa (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

IJBall, Magitroopa: The recent IP who's been blocked for edit warring and personal attacks may be a sockpuppet. All of their edits are to Hunter Street, except their very first one, which was to List of WWE personnel, which seemed familiar, and then I remembered the disruption on Hunter Street back in March by User:WWE and NFL superfan: Interaction report. Coincidence? Chances of that seem very low. Amaury • 19:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And the recent revert on the talk page confirms my suspicions. Amaury • 19:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not the same person the hunter street stuff in March I let go of even though I did see that it is coming on April 19 in the UK I am not editing anything. The only reason I reverted the talk page on the hunter street talk was because I just didn’t understand why the thing was removed with the only reason being the person was blocked I just didn’t get why. user:WWE and NFL superfan • 4:12, April 13 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Then you were deliberately not paying attention, because I specifically quoted the WP:NPA section of WP:TPO when I reverted your talk page post. It didn't escape my notice that you then removed the PA's before restoring that post. But I don't think we're buying your professed innocence here, because it definitely looks like you deliberately edited while logged out in order to WP:EW... Regardless, after your behavior on the Hunter Street talk page, I don't want you around my Talk page, so please don't respond here anymore unless asked to. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

ok fine I did not do anything but fine because I don’t want to be around anyone who accuses me of something either but yeah just not a fan of being falsely accused the only reason I am reverting this is because I did see your final warning what do you mean it was unconstructive you accused me of being a liar and I replied and then I was letting you know I saw it but you said only say anything if I am asked to in my opion bringing me up is giving me a right to reply I learned two years ago that you can't stop people commenting because you don't like them and what do you mean my behavior it was not me user:WWE and NFL superfan — Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:75.118.112.126 reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury • 15:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And Magitroopa. Amaury • 15:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)