User talk:Cyphoidbomb

A cookie for you

174.91.69.244 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Sky Plc

bskyb does not exist anymore the company has changed name to sky plc no need to change my update

Destructive Destroyer

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Daniel Case's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy Holidays!

Favre1fan93 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, 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 cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Email Message

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Happy Tree Friends - Broadcast & Owned (reverted my Information)

Hi, My name is Drajat Achmad Imransyah or Imran from Indonesia. By The Way, Happy Tree Friends is not broadcast in National TV Station Indosiar because KPI (Indonesian Broadcasting Commission) can't allow any violence cartoon/anime in Television. And where do you got a information about Happy Tree Friends owned by Surya Citra Media? That is a HOAX. Thank You. imranfreak (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2015 (GMT+8)

Apologies

sorry my its my mistake, i don't do again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.178.119 (talk • contribs)

sorry its totly my mistake i can't do it again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samirjha123456789 (talk • contribs)

Re: Frustration

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Coderzombie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cinechicken

Currently it's unreliable. Only one user PallaviSave is adding it and she even tried to create a cinechicken page. It would be better if you remove any material citing Cinechicken. --C E (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Gabrishl: On edits to HIT Entertainment.

I'm wondering why you took out what you did. If you look on your website, you can properly see that this is a real thing, in the form of a press release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrishl (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gabrishl: Hi there, thank you for your note. Since you were able to find the "undo" button, it's a little confusing that you didn't see my edit summary, where I explained my rationale for removing the content and included a link. I wrote, "WP:CRYSTAL Must be sourced". But to make it easier for you, I'll explain: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We shouldn't be making statements about future events without providing ample sources in the article body, whether the statements are true or not. When you add content without sources, you're placing the burden on other editors to research whether or not the content is accurate. That's not helpful, and the burden is yours to provide sources for the content you submit. Further, when you argue that I should look on the HiT website, you make it sound so simple, but if you didn't provide a reference, editors are forced to guess where you might have heard this information. Maybe you read it on their website, maybe you read a press release from one of the trade publications, maybe you read something in the form of a Tweet, maybe you heard someone whisper in a toilet stall. Nobody knows but you. You should definitely get into the habit of submitting sources when you edit, lest you'll find many of your edits reverted by default, something that all new editors find frustrating. For information on how to add sources, please see the video at Referencing for Beginners. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How dare you

How dare you say it's dubious of me to say my husband of twenty-five years passed away. I just wanted you guys to know because he loved editing this site and though some of his editing buddies could send condolences. At least one editor knew it was right. Shame on you. (Mrs. Meltdown (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) My condolances on your loss. Please understand that sometimes people will "prank" an editor by saying they were seriously ill or had passed away. It's a tough call when you see an editor you don't recognize make an edit like that so they'll revert it because it may cause distress to others if that editor hadn't passed. It's a really tough call to make. The edit summary could have been (and probably should have been) nicer and more respectful though. Ravensfire (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: FYI. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I was on my way to leave a link to this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User McQueen.30 so you could add your thoughts regarding the similarities to AM but I see that NeilN has wisely done so earlier. Things are happening quickly so thanks again for your vigilance. MarnetteD|Talk 21:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Be civil

And get off your high horse. TheDethklokGuy (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Ever After High characters

Now that the character list content is moved to the main page (although still in comments), is it time to nuke the page? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Found an encyclopedia entry by Vincent Terrance on the show (same with Monster High). It's got some good profiles for the major characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the merge. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 11:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: And I was of no help! Sorry, I got caught up in sleeping and antivandalism... :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I should be sleeping too! :) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 11:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Dude, you'd better put back all the crush cruft in that article or I'mma take you to ANI!!!! On a serious note, it's looking much better! Great work! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X (film)

I accept motherlandmagazine source but , now are you going to prove this is also reliable?

http://www.darkmoon.in/mrx-review

which becomes

http://blog.darkmoon.in/bollywood-horror/mr-x-film-review/

--C E (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

TV related RfC

You recently participated in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 20#Presenters' years in infobox. Subsequent to this discussion, an RfC has been opened at Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)#RfC: Should years be included in the infobox, in which you may be interested in participating. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Caps and non-caps in IPv6

Hi Cyphoid. I'm not sure why, but whenever I pull up the contributions for an IPv6, the letters in the ID are always displayed in CAPS, so that's how I copy-paste them into the list at User:Cyphoidbomb/Marhc Vandal. However, currently on that page, many of the entries show those same addresses with the letters in lowercase. This makes it somewhat difficult to see which IPs have already been listed. Apparently, I am not the only one who has experienced this; you just entered one identical to the one right above it. Only it was vice-versa, adding lowercase with caps version already existing. Where are you getting the lowercase form? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Racerx11:, now that you ask me, I can't say for sure! I think I might be copy/pasting them from the article's edit history. Here for instance you'll notice the lower-case IP listed, along with Everyking's reversion, which capped them. If you have a preference it wouldn't be hard for me to convert them. Lemme know! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I've converted them to upper-case for visual consistency. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow! that was quick. I was going to start doing it with lower-case from now on if I knew where to get them easily enough. Thanks. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

OpenOffice makes it easy to swap caps. Took a few clicks is all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Some vandal or other

For info, in the unlikely chance that you miss it: Special:Contributions/194.81.223.1. Best,  —SMALLJIM  12:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Smalljim: Why, that little self-deluded hypocrite is none other than HoshiNoKaabii2000. That IP geolocates to the Aberdeen City Council, which clearly isn't doing enough for at-risk youths. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if he'll still be there in two years time.  —SMALLJIM  13:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Smalljim: I doubt the kid could hold a job. In the meantime, I've signed him up for this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fairly Odd Parents

Why did you undone my edit? We don't know who Timmy married at the end of Channel Chasers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerrySa1 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@JerrySa1: Are you talking about this edit? I explained my reversion here. "Confusing. Introduces lack of certainty. Explain on talk page please." You didn't include an edit summary, and the content you added introduces confusing details, which is why I asked you to explain it on the article's talk page. Even now I don't know what was intended. Do we know who the kids' parents are? If not, we should cut the content entirely. We don't, however, need speculation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Questionable Revision

18:58, 25 March 2015‎ Cyphoidbomb (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,819 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (Undid revision 653492284 by Yoshams (talk) Unsourced and questionable. Regular typists can type that fast.)

Regarding the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_captioning under the section "Technical development of closed captioning", third paragraph, the number you revised the edit to (225) is unrealistic. The highest WPM recorded is 212. Could you possibly provide a source for where you got that number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.220.178 (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@66.64.220.178: Hi there, thanks for the note. My comment refers to the change here, where, without any explanation or source, editor Yoshams changes a typing speed from 225 to 80–100. Changing an unsourced number to another unsourced number has no particular value to the project, as both values are unsourced, and 225 wpm has been the status quo since 2009. You should probably ask Yoshams why he changed it. Maybe he thought it was more believeable? Doesn't make it more accurate. I can type (once I'm awake and fully caffeinated) somewhere in the 80–90 range, so there's nothing inherently wow-ing about that number to me, and the only typing training I've had was in high school. Now the one thing you might be finding difficult to wrap your head around is that the article is talking about the use of people trained as court reporters to do the captioning. Court reporters use stenotype machines, not QWERTY keyboards to change words into shorthand symbols based on phonetics. With this method, court reporters can routinely "type" 180–225 wpm (if you believe the Wikipedia article) and as high as 375. General YouTube video on how the stenograph machine works here. Hope that helps, my friend. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Citing books

I see you removed my reference at the ICC page "saying that is not how we cite books" and that is wasn't appropriate, care to expand? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

NickALive!

Confirming your first opinion and decided to revert you on Movies on this one; at least with NAM there was some polishing of the writing before they threw up their 'best network ever' spin; this is all just completely unchecked press releases that are so unattributed that I'm surprised that Viacom's lawyers haven't slammed it off the web yet. If I see this, I'm reverting, plain and simple. Nate • (chatter) 05:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't Fear the Reaper

Mr. Teatime references the Death family motto in Hogfather (it was also mentioned in the TV adaptation).

N1ckFG (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

N1ckFG Thanks for the note. The reference belongs in the article. I know you've been having trouble lately with some problematic Chrome extension. I'm also aware that you've disabled it, so if you add the reference to the article in question, I think we can consider this a done-deal. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb Yup, done.

References

Nicktoons Revision

I just got your message about the Nicktoons edit (I was off the internet lol) It's all good I'll fix the errors if there's any left but yeah don't worry about it. TheUpdates (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Marhc vandal page

Hello. Our buddy has been busy today. Hope you don't mind, but I have made several changes to your vandal page on him. Feel free to tweak, correct, add to, or revert any of my changes as you see fit. Thanks. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Racerx11 Gorgeous, good work, love it. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

List Of Programs Brodcast by CN Arabia

All my edits are sourced stop undoing them

first All upcoming series were confirmed either by CN Arabia itself or the dubbing studio

second The list of programs currently broadcast , is outdated it's from March , I updated it to correspond the May schedule same thing for the reruns

Then we have the minor edits i did Tasali in arabic تسالي is written with ي not ى or else it will be read tasala other thing , Chowder , Camp lazlo , dexter's lab and Powerpuff girls are CN Originals and not aquired series , you need a source for that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiserNeko (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@KaiserNeko: You are editing at the English Wikipedia, and the expectations here require that content you submit be verifiable. You have added ZERO adequate references, you have participated in ZERO discussions, and you keep adding unsourced content. As indicated on your talk page, per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on you to add references to the article. Failure to do that is disruptive and inconsistent with this community's expecations. If you have a problem with this, you are free to edit elsewhere. Lastly, this discussion needs to take place at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic, not here. If you keep resubmitting challenged, unsourced content, it will be considered disruptive, and you will either wind up blocked, or I will ask that the article be protected. Your choice, really. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Metacritic

Hello! My source is at the end of each Metacritic credits page, for example let's take this one from Unfriended here. At the end of the page, it states that "Movie title data, credits, and poster art provided by: IMDb". Genre and all information on the page are duplicated from IMDb here. This goes for all the films on the site. Ditto for the film I edited (Big Hero 6): here and hereAndrzejbanas (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Awwwwww crap! I'm bummed, but appreciative for the info and edification. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic

How can you refute the IP's unsourced additions when none of the existing content is sourced? — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal I refute it entirely on the basis that it is unsourced, the onus is on the contributor and the content being added does not meet WP:V, or at least anything related to former programming is. Adding unsourced content to unsourced content doesn't improve anything. There's no presumption that the existing content or the new content is accurate, and at some point we have to challenge the content and demand a source, or else it's just an endless ebb and flow of meaningless slurry. I would be genuinely surprised if any of the former broadcast content meets WP:V. How does one verify, exactly, that season two of The Looney Tunes Show aired before season one as the article claims? Or that only 3 seasons of The Smurfs aired between June 12, 2011 and June 13, 2012, or that Inspector Gadget and the Powerpuff Girls aired at all? I've attempted numerous times to reach out to various of these actors, including on the talk page, but most of them are IP-hoppers and/or aren't interested in discussion. Surely they notice that the content is being removed. Surely they have wondered why and have checked the edit history. I've also boldly removed content but it keeps coming back. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal A step? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Need help getting content from site in Arabic. I don't believe WikiProject Television holds these international offshoot programming lineup lists in high regard. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I just have mixed feelings about semi-protecting. How do I know I'm locking it up in a bad state? Part of me wants to trust the openness of the wiki and let users try to correct things. But just as you say, I think the page history has proven it'll only serve as a playground for fans to make arbitrary changes. Something like this should instead be on Wikia. On Wikipedia, if after repeated attempts, we are unable to verify anything, the article should simply be deleted, or in this case redirected, I suppose. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your points are understood. We could wait a few days to see if there's any help from the reference desk. I could also float a query past the WikiProject to see how they think it should be handled. ? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes notifying the WikiProject sounds like a good idea. I'm holding off on protecting right now, but I'll keep an eye on it and see how things develop. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Thanks m'man. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I have approved your request. Please wait until an admin can come to take care of this. Electrified Man Attacks! (Face my wrath!) 11:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just cuz I feel like it.

Electrified Man Attacks! (Face my wrath!) 11:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Movie

Kind of poor form to assume that I removed that piece of information because I didn't like it, isn't it? I genuinely thought it was useless/superseded information that didn't add to anyone's knowledge of the film, but I did look at a number of another of other film pages and it looks like Metacritic is very commonly cited. (Although for what it's worth I didn't find any movies citing information aggregated from as few as six reviews!).

I.e., I admit to making a procedural error, but you certainly weren't very friendly/reasonable about it (attributing a primary motive other than the legitimate one I mentioned in my edit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbutler3331 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rbutler3331, thanks for the note. Well there was obviously something you didn't like about it, but your point is noted, and I apologize for the sharpness of my summary. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, whether or not I "obviously [don't like]" the information is immaterial as to whether or not it is relevant to include in an article. You were just editorializing, in addition to assuming that you knew what my primary motivation was for the edit. Be careful with assumptions (unless you're accusing me of an improper bias for editing the article - in which case you should do so explicitly). I do appreciate the apology though for the tone. Take care & peace to you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbutler3331 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Rbutler3331 There was no editorialization beyond my brief 11 word edit summary, so I'm not sure what you're talking about and I'm, respectfully, forced to ignore the additional rebuke. You publicly expressed disdain for the very content you removed from the article five minutes later, and then again two hours later. However, you did think twice about the later removal and reverted it. Now, moving back on topic, the reason why we include both RT and Metacritic, is that they have different metrics for evaluating response, even if we're talking about the same reviews being evaluated bye each site. For a film like Hey Arnold! The Movie, RT and Metacritic are not eye-to-eye. RT has more of a pass/fail system, in this case, the film was a rotten tomato, where Metacritic tends to evaluate on a slightly more graduated scale and the film earned a "mixed" rating. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Who says an 11 word statement can't involve editorializing? I think it's pretty clear that you were suggesting that I removed the information (mostly/entirely) because I didn't like it. You could have done the proper thing and just pointed out why the material belonged in the article. Instead, you chose to make it personal (about my motives).

You happen to be right - I was a little taken aback that the article could indicate that the critical consensus involved "Overwhelming dislike" based on just six reviews (when most movies on the site that cite Metacritic have dozens, and one of the reviews was even quoted on Metacritic as saying "Ban this sick filth." Really, that's legitimate criticism?), but it seemed like a totally legitimate edit to make considering the aforementioned facts and the additional redundancy involved since these reviews were included as part of the larger Rotten Tomatoes sample. You've pointed out why I was wrong with these assumptions, at least per Wiki policy, and I admit error there (I have only edited very sporadically over the years), but that still doesn't excuse your (twice, now) impugning my motives for removing the information.

Ignore whatever you want; it's your prerogative (I'm guessing you actually meant "disagree with"/"deny the substance of," given the fact that you addressed to it anyway). Just understand that you made things personal by telling me I was removing something (implicitly mostly or entirely) because I didn't like it. I don't edit here often and haven't done so in a long time, but being chastised for a good faith edit by someone when I do isn't fun (when the appropriate policy could have just been pointed out. I would have been totally cool with that!).

I mean, do I sound like someone dumb enough to think that not liking a piece of information is valid grounds for suggesting its removal?

Gotta get back to the real world now, but man, give people the benefit of the doubt sometimes :)

Take care, sir or ma'am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbutler3331 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For rephrasing "critical acclaim" to "generally positive reviews" in Drushyam yesterday based on a single review and thereby calling it a "few" ones. You made my day sir! Thank you! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: Thanks. Though I'm very happy to be jokey, my edit wasn't intended to be funny. So if it came across as a joke, then we should consider changing it, since I expect my edits to be consistent with NPOV. If only one review has been provided, then maybe "generally positive reviews" is not sufficient, but then neither is the sentimetn "it received critical acclaim". It's not abnormal to cite a source for a specific overall critical analysis. For example at Jupiter Ascending#Critical reception where the specific analysis is sourced to the Christian Science Monitor, but the aggregation results support the assertion. If it's different at Drushyam, then let's avoid any summary of critical response and go with a straight breakdown of reviews that are geared toward NPOV. "This review was 5/5, this review was 3.5/5, this was 3/5" etc. I'm not a big fan of summarizing critical response anyway. I'd rather pick a neutral balance of reviews and leave it at that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your "sense of humour", MOS related and NPOV based edits on this article which i am planning to take it to GA status. I believe you shall help me. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Friendios105

Suzzane martin was the creator of crowded, so i put samjen productions because she founded the company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendios105 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Friendios105: Hi, I don't understand your comment. You need to support your additions with sources, not with unsupported statements. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mad Max

So as a general rule is there anytime when I should critical acclaim in an article? Broncosman12 (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Broncosman12

@Broncosman12: I have no idea what you're asking, but you may want to float your question by WikiProject Film, with some examples for consideration, so that you get a wider range of responses than just mine. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Oregongirl0407's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Wishing Lucky Lucke

They're a sockpuppet of User:6Flamingo, and exhibit exactly the same behaviour as both that user, and blocked socks such as User:ShwingGumme (note the similar manipulation of the naming as well). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: I had a pretty strong guess that they were a sock of someone. I placed the warning on the page merely as a formality. :) Thanks for the note though, as I didn't know who they were. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'd filed an AIV report on them already at that point, although I fear that I may have to go through the SPI process for no good reason. It's entirely possible that 6Flamingo is, in itself, a User:Maelbros sock; the behaviour matches. 6Flamingo isn't blocked at the moment, so it's not block evasion in that sense, but it's still pretty clear sockpuppetry IMO. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

School week

Your recent action was improper because the PROD template says quite emphatically, "If this template is removed, do not replace it." Your suggestion that I should revert you to discuss the matter is also quite improper per WP:REVTALK. If you want the matter to be discussed then you should please start a discussion yourself. Andrew D. (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I have self-reverted, but your suggestion that it is my responsibility to get to the bottom of a PROD is not sound, as the first step of WP:CONTESTED instructs you to explain the removal, and even general editing principles emphasize the importance of communication. So, maybe a lesson learned for us both. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The Simpsons as a related series

Hi, I started a discussion section on the Futurama talk page if you'd like to contribute. Let me know what your thoughts are. I recognize that this is a case that is more ambiguous than the TV box guidelines indicate, but I feel that there is still a compelling argument for the two to be listed as related beyond single cross-over episodes or shows related merely by the same creator. I welcome your input!Luminum (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry bout that, wasn't intending to revert you, just someone else. Rusted AutoParts 15:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Ah! Well then that was quickly resolved. :) Thanks, Rusted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Stone Quackers-response

Nothing personal with your comment about Stone Quackers. Just trying to improve the comment of the Gothball spinoff that John O'Hurley started in by expanding it as the way you described it. I had no idea that you had an issue with it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

About Introduction of P.K.

Hello, I don't understand why you deleted my sentence about "wide critical acclaim." It is very common across movie articles on Wikipedia to indicate critical success in the film's introduction, and this especially holds because it is factually true as well that the film received critical acclaim, so I do not understand why you claim that we "aren't critical response aggregators." Can certainly provide references if you want evidence. I deleted a blurb about the film being in the IMDb top 250 because it is not true anymore... so I indicated the critical success this way.