Jump to content

User talk:TVFAN24/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:TVFAN24

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 7 April 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The Young and the Restless current cast list

Oh, okay, I should have read your edit summary to figure out what you were trying to do. as for the cast lists, I started a discussion on The Young and the Restless's talk page about removing those lists because I feel they aren't really necessary because of other lists that give the same information and more. I also feel that including a current list is a case of negative Wikipedia:Recentism because it makes the current cast appear more important just because they are "current". I'm not going to revert you, but I do think this needs to be discussed here:Talk:The Young and the Restless#Removing current.2C recurring.2C and upcoming cast members lists. Rocksey (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Please refrain from using a normal dash or hyphen ("-") when making edits pertaining to year ranges (i.e. 2002-2009). As per Wikipedia style guidelines, you must use an en dash ("–"), which is produced by holding ALT and hitting 0150, then releasing. Please change all of your edits to replace the hyphens with en dashes, or they will be reverted. Thank you. — CIS (talk | stalk) 22:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see numerous problems with your recent edits. First off, your adding a line break between a person's name and the years they were on the show is against the formatting found at Template:Infobox television. Secondly, if someone has been on a show for the entire run of the show, there is no need to have the years listed that they have been on the show. Thirdly, flagicons are not needed in a show's infobox, again see Template:Infobox television. Fourthly, your edits need to have a edit summary, so other editors know why you made certain edits. Fifthly, if you are going to undo an edit, you NEED to have an edit summary like it says when you click "Undo": "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." None of the edits you reverted were vandalism. Aspects (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Just to let you know, your recent edit to the List of Days of our Lives cast members list was reverted because, per WP:V, we cannot use fansites, such as soaps.com, soapoperafan.com, etc, as reliable sources. These are sites with no affiliation whatsoever with the show. Printed magazine sources, such as Soap Opera Digest, are allowable. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this policy. Welcome to Wikipedia! Rm994 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, we do not add future dates to this list. Melissa and Max have not returned yet, so we don't add their dates back until AFTER they have debuted. If you have any questions about formatting, please contact me. I would be more than happy to assist you. Have a great day. Rm994 (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page America's Got Talent has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Bryan Dattilo

Bryan Dattilo is still listed on the end credits, and there is no source cited on the page saying he has exited. If you can find a RELIABLE (NOT A FAN SITE) source that confirms his exit, you can return the reverted content. The end credits do count as a source. If his name is removed, you can remove his name from the cast list, as long as you source it. Have a great day :) Rm994 (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

You have previously been warned about adding reliable sources to edits you make here. Reliable sources are published third party sources. Fan sites do not count as reliable. These includes sites such as soapoperafan.com, soaps.com, tvbuddy.com, etc. Per WP:V, these are unreliable, so I have reverted your changes to the List of Days of our Lives cast members page. If you have any questions about this policy, please feel free to contact me. Have a great day. :) Rm994 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edits=

Reverting edits that are:

  1. consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and
  2. explained on an article's talk page

without discussing the changes on the talk page leads to edit wars, which are a waste of everyone's time, and is a very uncool way to behave. Please stop doing it. Ground Zero | t 03:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TVFAN24. Thank you. –MuZemike 01:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your user talk page edits

Hello TV Fan. I wanted to bring your attention to our policy on what we call canvassing, which is to make other users aware of a particular discussion. I'm concerned that your recent messages to other users constitute campaigning for a particular viewpoint, rather than explaining that there is a dispute about the article and simply asking for input. You should be aware that this is considered fairly inappropriate here, and it would be better in future if you kept your message to a brief, unbiased description of the conflict, and a request for an opinion (but not a specific conclusion).

Also, "SineBot" is a bot who performs several automated tasks, so if you don't hear back from him, don't be too surprised :) (ESkog)(Talk) 06:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Right back at ya.

In response for the thanks in regards to the WMAQ former on-air staff dispute. Thanks for the thanks, it's about time somebody in this world gave me a chance to voice my opinion and not chide me for expressing it. Tvtonightokc 07:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article WMAQ-TV has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to WMAQ-TV. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to WFLD, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Again; please do not continue to add unreferenced entries to these employee lists without reaching a consensus with other editors on the article's talk page. Your input is also welcome on the current discussion regarding these issues in Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Lists of non-notable "past employees" of television stations?. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Agreement"

Who is 'we'? What agreement? You, and suspected sockpuppet "TV Superstar", are the only people I see on the discussion who believe these people should stay on the list. You can't get your way by just continuing to revert; you need to explain where you believe this actually reflects the consensus of Wikipedia editors. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As a full participant in that discussion at the Village Pump, I can assure you that there was no consensus arrived at in this case; not even close. The only reason that those entries (and others) are still present in these articles is because other editors simply gave up because we didn't want the hassle of putting up with continuous reversions and flames. I have yet to see any explanation whatsoever offered by TVFAN24 as to why they believe that any of that material conforms to our policies. TVFAN24, please do not indicate that an "agreement" was arrived at in any sense, as you did here [1] and here [2] in these edit summaries. It is simply not true. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
98.223.95.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "N2487". The reason given for N2487's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: obvious sockpuppet of User:TV Superstar".

Decline reason: You are now directly blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the edits that took place on my account. I have other people in the household that knew about the situation and must have reverted the edit w/o my knowledge that was agreed upon. I can assure you that it won't happen again b/c I am locking my computer leaving them w/o access. Can you please unblock my account at your earliest convenience. Thanks so much. TVFAN24 (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


You can leave all the pages as you had them and I will never edit again w/o first discussing it on the discussion page. If I ever did something like that again you can block me forever. I will only make constructive edits with sources. Can you please lift my block so that it expires in like a week or so. I don't think 6 months is a necessary punishment. Thanks. 98.223.95.42 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2010TVFAN24 (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|1=You can leave all the pages as you had them and I will never edit again w/o first discussing it on the discussion page. If I ever did something like that again you can block me forever. I will only make constructive edits with sources. Can you please lift my block so that it expires in like a week or so. I don't think 6 months is a necessary punishment. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can you please lift my block, one of my kids got a hold of this computer and started making edits w/o my knowledge. I am the owner of this computer and IP address. I have put a lock on this computer and assure you that it won't happen ever again as I only look at Wikipedia for information. Thank you. TVFAN24 (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is exactly the same request which you have posted elsewhere. We cannot tell whose fingers are on the keyboard, but you are in any case blocked for using multiple accounts. If you wish to use the encyclopedia only for reference then feel free; you just can't edit. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason why I posted this here is b/c another administrator told me in order to have my IP address block lifted, I have to request for it on the account which is blocked which is this one that my son created. I asked my son for this account's password. I'm not asking for this account to be open just my IP address b/c sometimes I make constructive edits when something changes since I always want Wikipedia to be up to date with the latest changes and no other accounts will be ever again created except for my IP address. Sorry I wont use this template again if you can just lift this ban please. I am not a bad person who vandalizes articles like a lot of people do.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    • understand what you have been blocked for,
    • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do understand what I have been blocked for, the administrators at Wikipedia work hard to make sure the site is the most credible it can be. I had no right to keep those lists and now understand the policies and punishments for misuse. I deeply apologize and will not edit unless there is a concensus or there are proper sources. I am begging you to please lift this IP address ban. There are edits coming up for stations and I would love to participate in making them. I will also use ONLY one account. Thanks so much. You guys are the best at what you do and I will not undermine that again. TVFAN24 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

User is STILL evading blocks using socks, even today, and while still waiting for an unblock request to be granted. Clearly, no respect for the policies of this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You'd be a lot more believable if you hadn't continued creating and using alternate accounts after you were blocked. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup. This one took the cake. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I take it that today's sock edits were related to TV? The amazing persistence of some editors in attempting to add or maintain certain types of unreferenced biographical material in these television articles is really something to behold. I'm willing to believe that some; even most, of these types of edits are motivated by obsessed fandom; but we shouldn't completely lose sight that some of it is in all likelihood distinctly promotional in nature and aimed at feeding both egos and managers. Of course, without the apparent bother of even attempting to abide by our policies and guidelines. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok guys you got me. I admit it. I was just upset b/c no one had lifted the ban on my IP address. All I am asking for is if you could please lift the ban on my IP address. There will be no more accounts or sockpuupetry going on. You can have your way and keep the format that abides by Wikipedia policy. Its just that I really did like to edit a news personality's name who left a station. All I will do is remove their name and names as they are announced. I won't move them to a former list, although maybe that's something to be thought about for the future. The truth is out there now and you guys got me and I admit it. Please Please just lift the ban on my IP address and any edits will soely be from that. I think through all this drama, I did learn a lesson that you can never lie. Thanks TVFAN24 (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You say that you 'learned a lesson that you can never lie.' And you're right; that's the lesson to learn here. But speaking practically, since you have lied often in the past, I have no way to know whether or not you are lying now- but the evidence I have indicates that you probably are. Sockpuppeteers are rarely unblocked, because it's so hard to believe anything they say. One thing I've seen work in the past is to leave Wikipedia alone completely for a long period of time- one week for each account or ip used is a good rule of thumb- to show that you're willing to follow the rules, and then make a request for unblocking- one that's polite, sincere, and shows a willingness to follow the rules- on the original account. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{unblock|The only reaon I made all those accounts was b/c I was very upset. I had edited those few stations over a year ago, and no one found fault w/ it up until now. Why is that??? I am a former employee of two of those stations and the info was very accuarte. Not just myself but other people have told me that they have enjoyed looking at the list to see how the stations have changed over the years. Yes I admit what I did was wrong, but I was just trying to stand up for all my hard work. In the future, I will make sure everyone is ok with it before I proceed with the editing. But I do think its a shame b/c just for instance yesterday someone deleted a whole page and wrote "Here now you can re-type everything" on the WBBM-tv page. Now that is a vandalism act and that person wasn't blocked. I did have good intentions and was just trying to add to the stations. }

Your request has been thoroughly reviewed by several different administrators. Further unblock requests at this point are simply wasting the time of administrators; there isn't any need for further reviews of this block, nor are reviewers likely to unblock you based on this request. Since you are now making excessive unblock requests unlikely to lead to an unblock, I've disabled your ability to make more. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Block Review

This user contacted me independently and I reviewed the decisions here. While I agree with most of them I believe that policy was not followed in a few cases and AGF was not followed. Therefore I've modified her blocks to give her a chance as follows:

  • I did not see justification for an indefinite IP ban. The IP ban has been modified for no new account creation and no anon editing for 3 months.
  • Bans on all sockpuppets are not consistent, they're all banned indefinitely with no new account creation, some had AutoIP others didn't, they're all consistent across the board.
  • I did not see justification for an indefinite user ban. This shouldn't happen in this manner for a user who reacted inappropriately to an edit war. I have given her a 30 day ban on editing and she can edit her own talk page again.
  • I have strongly cautioned her against creating more havoc on her talk page or create any more sockpuppet accounts.

I reviewed her edits, there aren't scores of them across scores of articles, she is very focused in one area and she's adding information she feels is relevant. Another user removed it with NO discussion on the talk page. I reviewed all the talk pages and there's no discussion of her changes they were just removed. She clearly reacted inappropriately with the socks but not to the level to me that justifies indefinite bans. I'm always willing to listen to other points of view though.

Feel free to contact me with any issues with this user going forward.

--Wgfinley (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I very much appreciate the time and effort you put into accomplish this for me.TVFAN24 (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for all the unblock requests that I put various administrators through and for my sockpuppetry. I simply did not understand Wikipedia's policy on that and will never engage in that type of behavior again. Please accept my apology for those actions and I promise to make edits that are constructive in the future. TVFAN24 (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Former On Air Staff

Something has happened over the last month that I find to be very upsetting and disturbing. I felt it was very relevant to include all of these stations former on air talent lists and I had been the only one that kept updating them as they came and went for the past year. However, this past month I found those five pages to be reverted with no reason at all in favor of "Notable" names only. I felt that the list did not impose on the article itself at all, and just added to the stations history. I fought very hard and everyone on the subject just disagreed w/ my reasoning and kept the "Notable" list as is. I even offered to add a reference tag to it in order for myself or other editors to make Wikipedia pages for each individual who didn't have one. Another editor did the same thing for WCNC-TV and it was left untouched. When I tried to do that, it just got reverted back claiming there was a concenus. I have always been a loyal contribuitor to Wikipedia, who worked full time and still devoted my day to adding anchors and reporter who have left the station along with the years. Now I feel like I did all that work for nothing. I feel that Chicago is a major market and should include all the names that contributed over the years to that station, its not like I added makeup people, hair people, etc... only on-air talent. Also, I had been the only editor over this past year to have continuously make edits to those few pages and other people saw them and had no problem and even added a name or two and then out of nowhere they are deleted and another "Notable" list is put in its place from editors who had never edited tohose pages before. I also wrote my feelings on this particular editor's talk page and I have discovered that he/she deleted it. What does that tell you??? It shows me they don't want to hear about anything I have to say on this matter. I feel that list was relevant and should be included in the article. Only a fourth of the people that were involved with the station are now in that list. Can people please give me their opinion b/c I am a relentless person and I am determined to eventually have those lists back where they belong.TVFAN24 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What you didn't choose to mention in this posting, is that when you approached me on my talk page as you described; you did so as a sockpuppet because your main account (this one in fact) had already been blocked by an administrator for refusing to stop persistently re-adding the same unreferenced material to these articles over and over. After you surfaced as a sock on my talk page and I discovered the fact; I removed your comments from my page because of their manipulative and disingenuous nature. Look at all the article histories for these Chicago stations; it wasn't just me who was rejecting these edits. Once again, it seems to me, you're attempting to justify your desire to add this sort of unreferenced list material to articles, in my opinion, based on variations of the arguments "because I worked so hard on them","because I like them","because they're useful" and "because they don't do any harm"; none of which, if I'm interpreting policy correctly, being desirable reasons for maintaining problematic material in the encyclopedia. What would be more useful at the moment; again, in my opinion, is an answer to the question: why is it that you believe that unreferenced lists of former employees of television stations are at least in some sense exempt from abiding by things like WP:NLIST and WP:Source list? Please, let's get beyond simply arguing about "notability" in regard to including material and start talking about "verifiability" and "original research". And double please; do not once again begin to re-add unreferenced material to these articles without discussion. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's the thing, I would like to add the reference tag like editor JTRC did to WCNC-TV which you seemed fine with. I know I did that recently under a sockpuppet and I understand why that was removed at the time. This time it will not be done under false pretenses. Other editors started rejecting the material but you were the first one that changed it which started the whole ball rolling. The reson I say "I" is b/c in a way I feel emotionally invested to this part of the article being that "I" was the only one editing that section of the stations for an ENTIRE YEAR AND EVERYONE ELSE EDITED DIFFERENT AREAS TO THOSE ARTICLES AND LEFT WHAT I DID ALONE. I'M SURE YOU'D FEEL THE SAME WAY IF YOU WORKED HARD ON A PARTICLAR SECTION OF AN ARTILCE AND THEN OUT OF NOWHERE A YEAR LATER IT WAS REVERTED. I ALSO FEEL AS THOUGH BEFORE I CAME ALONG, THESE STATIONS WERE LEFT TOTALLY UNEDITED AND NO ONE SEEMED TO ADD ANY CURRENT INFORMATION TO THEM. All I am asking you for is when my block expires, just to those five stations, may I "Double Please" be allowed that same privilege as user JTRC was in adding a reference tag to the section. This is one area of concentration as you can see that I find fascinating. That being said, the list is there but it informs and allows other editors and administrators the time to either source or make actual pages for the personlities without removing the material all together. Is that ok with you???? At least maybe we can come to terms with it on equal basis. My ultimate goal is to come to peace with you on this topic so we can both let it rest and put our energies into something else and to enjoy the rest of the summer. Thanks TVFAN24 (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Big time out here please folks. First, the two of you clearly don't get along so well I would propose you use this period where TVFAN is blocked from editing to cool down and steer clear of each other. It's more than obvious to me after I went back and looked at TVFAN's edits that the failure of the BOTH of you to work out your differences has consumed a lot of administrator time. I fully see and understand what happened here or I would have lifted the ban completely. 30 days is a pretty serious ban (at least from when i first got my mop I remember it as such). I want to try to work with TVFAN to make her a productive Wikipedian and we have some orientation to do where that is concerned. I can't do that if you're going to come and rile her up some more. The point about "I am determined to eventually have those lists back where they belong" is well met Decon, let me work here a bit.

TVFAN you are missing the point about building consensus with people which is what I was going to work with you on. Remember how I asked you to create subpages on your talk page with what you wanted to put back in those articles? Please work on that so then we can talk about what you want to add instead of what you are going to do at the end of the ban period. --Wgfinley (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, wikipedia was the only place that a person was able to locate a former anchor or a reporter on the web. Now, there are no websites that offer that. A Chicago anchor or reporter that had spent time on a station should have the right to be mentioned on that stations article. Its only right that since they contributed their services to that station that they should get a mere mention. I really can't seem to understand how that is vandalizing an article. There are many people I have seen that have just deleted a page for no reason and no acton was taken. I am only trying to add to add to an article's content with accurate information. Basically, all I am asking for is if I can add a REFERENCE TAG to those lists as it was done to WCNC-TV without a problem and I can't understand why I am not allowed to do the same thing. No one is mentioning that situation with WCNC-TV. Why??? All I am asking for is if it would be ok w/ everyone if I add the lists, not like they were before but with a reference tag to show everyone that that particular section of the article is still a work in progress. Maybe this way the feud can finally come to a rest b/c I am so sick of this already. Not all of my energy is going to be put into this anymore. This is gettting a little ridiculous already. Don't you think??? I will still continue to remove names if they become no longer with the station. I also don't appreciate being called "A BIG PIECE OF GRANITE" by Deconstructthis. Compared to other people in the world, I am not so bad. When something happened at one of those stations after reading about it in the press, I was ALAWYS the first one to make the necessary changes and this is how I got repayed for making those contributions??? By the way, I can't put this into those sub pages b/c I am still blocked and this is the only page I can edit. TVFAN24 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, one of you might want to look at deleting the page titled WBBM-TV Newsteam. The same information is also listed on WBBM-TV's article and this seems to be just a copy and there is no reason for the same info to be listed twice. Thanks TVFAN24 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

First, take a deep breath and calm down, don't respond 5 times to someone who has only posted once to you and I asked not to. Second, I made a subpage to your talk page to do your list, let me know if you can't edit it. --Wgfinley (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No I can't edit that subpage. Do you want me to put all of this that I wrote over the past few days on that subpage??? Or do you mean taking the 5 former cast lists of the stations as I would like them and putting them on there??? I can copy and paste that then??? TVFAN24 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Probation & Mentoring

I cam going to give TVFAN24 a trial run of not being blocked. Please bring any harmful edits to my attention. Thank you.

TVFAN is to review any pages she intends to edit with me before they are done.

--Wgfinley (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a fairly general question. TVFAN24 says above, Wikipedia was the only place that a person was able to locate a former anchor or a reporter on the web. Now, there are no websites that offer that. That means there are no verifiable reliable sources providing this information; certainly no sources are supplied in the articles. Am I missing some subtle detail here? --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I've had ongoing conversations with her about things being notable for Wikipedia. I'm having her post her lists here so she and I can go over them and cull through what is truly notable and what isn't. However, she has pointed out some valid areas on other articles that have such lists. This sort of gets into the age old "fan cruft" argument and that still has yet to be resolved. I'm continuing to work with her on this though and look at these lists and determine who's notable and should be in the article, who's deserving of their own article and which ones maybe don't need to be listed. It's something we continue to talk about when I go through her edits with her. --Wgfinley (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because there are lists of unsourced alleged data in some articles doesn't mean that that bad habit should be carried into other articles. Without sources, we're verging on BLP territory -- making biographical assertions about living people without verifiable sources. It's not a notability issue; verifiability is the issue. "Says who XXX worked at KWTF?" "Wikipedia." "And how does Wikipedia know?" "Um, ahh..." --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Citing sources has been something we've discussed quite a bit, as someone who pushed hard and often for citing sources before it was even regularly done I'm not going to let her forget that. I think sometimes people who are immersed in WP forget what it's like to just get started and understand citing sources and how it can be confusing to new people. I walked her through it and have pointed out where she's accidentally removed citations on other editing she was doing. I'm also pointing her towards some of the projects that she has interests in and getting her involved there could team her up with people who have similar interests and can help her work on her interests but within the framework of the project and thus WP. Rome wasn't built in a day. --Wgfinley (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I was going to let this situation rest b/c I was just glad to be allowed back to the wikipedia community. After reading this conversation, I couldn't just sit back w/o my voice being heard. All I suggested on doing was since Chicago is a very large and profitable news market, there are names that are missing on the current list that I feel deserve to be there b/c of the years they contributed to that station. I offered to include a reference tag just like below to them to allow other editors including myself, the time to sort through who belongs there and who does not. This also would show that this project is still a work in progress. In regards to this being allowed on the WCNC-TV page, doesn't really make sense to me since its a much smaller market than Chicago. Let me know your thoughts. Also, I got to looking at New York City's and Los Angeles's major stations and all of their former employees seem to be listed but not one of the three largest markets like Chicago?? It seems like Chicago was the only one to get picked on and I can't understand why. No, I won't do anything drastic until an agreement has been made. I also would like to take the time to personally thank Wgfinley for taking a chance on me when no one else within the community would. TVFAN24 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It just feels to me like you have the sequence backwards. Since you're the one introducing the data, you're the one who should have the sources at hand when you are introducing the data. Where are you getting your information from? --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jpgordon, believe me for the most part all of the names are accurate I am huge Chicago news fan and I place very close attention to all the comings and goings and that's why with the reference tag it will give me time to remove the ones that there is no proof for or even make a wikipedia page for some. Where are the sources for all those people on the New York and Los Angeles stations??? I am willing to work on Chicago's. B/c like I said there are people that deserve to be on that list that are missing just b/c they dont have a wiki page. I mean its not like its imposing on the article itself, the list is at the botttom of the page, if anything, its adding more info to it. I promise to include the ref tag just like it is on WCNC-TV and like I have below b/c w/o it I can understand your point. Also, I won't add any more old alumni to the list only people who leave the station from this point on. Can I have your permission to do that?? It would really mean a lot to me. Plus it gives me a project to work on. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits To Review

TVFAN you need to be careful with edits like this and this where you snipped someone's source citation. Also remember to tell me what areas you are moving on to, you never said anything about moving on to soaps. --Wgfinley (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

Don't get lazy on me, I know there has to be a source for this. --Wgfinley (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the same source that was already there. TVFAN24 (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Always put a line between what someone else types and what you type or it all runs on in one line. --Wgfinley (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job on this one! --Wgfinley (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wish Jpgordon would get back to me. TVFAN24 (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I'm backing off from this completely. The only reason I'm here is because of your previous abuse of multiple accounts (and, oddly, because I'd added my wife and a couple of other people to one of those lists for a California TV station.) That's all stopped. Other people can deal with the sourcing and the appropriateness of the lists. --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

American Idol

Stop removing Jennifer Lopez and Steven Tyler from the sections or I will report you for vandalism. TMZ isn't the only site out there that's confirmed it. I really don't mean to sound rude or anything, but there are several sites out there that confirmed the decision made regarding Lopez and Tyler's addition and DioGuardi's departure. So I think you should just go search for them and find out yourself before taking off useful information. Again I don't mean to sound rude. I'm just trying to get my point out there. Thanks.CloudKade11 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to WLS-TV. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Prison Warden/Days

I don't know what time zone you watch Days of Our Lives in, but we do not post debuting cast members in the current cast list until AFTER they debut in ALL areas, which she has not. After she debuts in each zone, you can return the reverted content. Have a nice weekend. Rm994 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from American Idol (season 10). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nowyouseemetalk2me 09:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but before you make any more disruptive edits like you did to the List of One Life to Live cast members article, make sure to follow it's correct format, or next time it will be listed as vandalism, and you will be reported, and may be blocked from making any more edits to Wikipedia. Thanks. CloudKade11 (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What part of "follow it's correct format" did you not understand? You just added them, and it wasn't the correct way. Again, with the coming and goings section. Stop taking off the cast members that still are not on the show. Here in the US(California), 10/1's episode hasn't aired. Heck, 9/30's episode hasn't even aired! You did the same with Markko, now Echo? Consider this your LAST warning. You will be reported and blocked. That I guarantee. CloudKade11 (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

List of US daytime soap opera ratings

Thanks for working on List of US daytime soap opera ratings, if you have time can you put the show titles from the 1960s to present into italics per the manual of Style for TV series titles? Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 03:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing that so fast, you'd better soak those sore fingers ;) — TAnthonyTalk 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Format/References

Please do not change the format of List of Days of our Lives cast members and do NOT remove references from the page. Rm994 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, please do not remove references from List of Days of our Lives cast members. The references you removed were placed there because there was formerly a dispute regarding those two character's names. It is BAD practice to remove references from articles. Please familiarize yourself with the rules of this site before making contributions. Rm994 (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing with removing Greg Evans from the "comings and goings" section on the cast members page of One Life to Live. He still hasn't had his final air date, so it makes no sense to remove it now. If you continue, you will be reported and blocked from making future edits on Wikipedia. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series)

This edit to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) removed legitimate content and introduced obviously out-dated, and thus false, information. Such edits constitute vandalism, and if you continue making such edits you could be blocked, so please don't do so. Thanks.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As you seen to be socking again, I've started a discussion at WP:ANI. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User with a history of socking at it again.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for renewed sockpuppeting, using 98.223.95.42. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 16:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made two edits to Dancing With The Stars as my IP address that caused this action. I hadn't edited with my account for several hours and neglected to log back in. This was an honest mistake and the edits should be removed as they accidentally revealed my IP address. I don't think two edits should qualify as socking.

Decline reason:

Per comment below and my own review of your record that confirms it. If you'd like to have your edits as the IP oversighted for privacy reasons please email me, or the oversight list, the diffs. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. 

TVFAN24 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The editor has failed to mention edit warring at WFLD using both TVFAN24 and 98.223.95.42, editing WBBM-TV and WBBM-TV news team using both the IP and the named account, List of All My Children cast members ‎ , List of The Young and the Restless cast members, ... for an editor that has been blocked so many times for socking, it's apparent that the lesson wasn't learned.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TVFAN24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not aware that editing between one username and an IP address was considered socking. A lot of times, I made edits and forgot to log in to my main account which is TVFAN24 which was also blocked indefinetly and that is the reason that the edits were made under my IP. The other articles mentioned, I regularly edit and it's simple to make a mistake to not log in. None of the edits were done to create a consensus or otherwise harmful. It's been 4 months since my prior incidents and I have been editing without issue since then. Now that I know, I will always consciously remember to log in before making any future edits on Wikipedia. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Accept reason:

Since there is some doubt as to whether this was intentional, I've converted the block on the IP to a soft-block, and am lifting the block on the account. TVFAN24 will no longer be able to edit anonymously while the block is in place. I caution TVFAN24 that she is on the edge of being blocked based on WP:3RR anyway, so she should proceed cautiously. —Kww(talk) 21:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has mentored TVFAN I have been emailed about this incident. At first I too thought she may have been using IP editing to conceal her identity. However, when you look at her edits under her account and as the IP they are hours apart, this would indicate she wasn't intentionally editing as an IP to conceal her identity. It's rather easy to edit under an IP and not realize you are not logged in. I think she's been on good behavior for 4 months and there's a failure to AGF here on some rather benign edits. --WGFinley (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The edits to WFLD were problematic. I agree that the other ones appear to be sloppiness.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I am disappointed she has waded back into some tendentious editing on her lists but it seems someone was correcting her and she would remove or come up with sources. I don't see her using IP editing to conceal herself on WFLD, it just looks to me that she didn't log in. I would think perhaps the block could be lifted with a warning to make sure she is logging in and will avoid further edit warring on WFLD and DWTS? --WGFinley (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please do not add unsourced speculation to List of Days of our Lives cast members. The source cited says NOTHING about return dates. Please do not add your own speculative dates to the list without citing a verifiable source. Rm994 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Days of our Lives cast members

Please do not delete Mark Hapka from the current cast list at List of Days of our Lives cast members. Per the soaps project, we do not remove cast members from the current list until AFTER they depart. Currently, he is still with the show. Rm994 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add 2011 to the duration column at List of Days of our Lives cast members. As stated above, we don't list that until AFTER the cast members depart. Further instances in not following style parameters could result in your being blocked from editing. Rm994 (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Galen Gering

Your input is requested at the talk page of List of Days of our Lives cast members. Rm994 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh you absolutely did the right thing. It was formatted completely wrong. I was just wondering if you thought we should have an entry for the imposter in the first place. Just wanted your opinion about adding him or not. The cast member page is supposed to be all inclusive for cast members, and Galen Gering is playing another character, so why not add him? What do you think? Rm994 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Only warning

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at WLS-TV. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Deconstructhis (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone looking at your talk page, will quickly determine that adding unreferenced biographical list material to television station articles is one of the reasons, that you have been blocked from editing in the past. Please do not continue to engage in this kind of stuff; as you have been advised many times in the past, or in my opinion, in all likelihood you will be blocked once again. If you want to discuss this please go to the article talk page. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite your past history of engaging in this sort of editing *and* the fact that I posted the message to you above that it was a 'final warning', I'm giving this one last 'kick at the can'.The comment that you made today when you, once again, re-added unreferenced biographical list material to the Entertainment Tonight article [3] appears to me to indicate that you have sort of missed the point of roughly 99% of the editors that have dealt with you on these issues over the past nine months or so. The only "consensus" that has been arrived at, by perhaps a dozen editors and administrators by this time is the following: lists (especially lists containing biographical material) are *not* exempt from the same rules applied to any other material in the encyclopaedia. They must be referenced and verifiable through the use of reliable sources. I could even link to specific instances where (when appealing a block that occurred for related matters) you actually flatly agree not to engage in adding unreferenced material to lists as a condition of having a block lifted, and you yourself then point to contextually specific instances of properly referenced list material, in an attempt to show that you understand what folks are trying to explain to you. None of this appears to have influenced you much; its as if, we hadn't said anything at all. Even though its all been repeated to you many times now. With this in mind, I have to advise you that this probably really is the 'last time'. If you engage in this sort of editing, even one more time, I'm afraid I'm going to have to deposit you, once again, in the arms of the administrators noticeboard. I did consider contacting your previous mentor on this issue one last time, but quite truthfully, I don't want to, in my opinion, waste his time any further; lord knows he's tried, as have others. Considering your editing history, if you once again pop up on the administrators noticeboard for these sorts of issues, I predict a dire outcome, in my opinion many of your co-editors have simply grown weary of dealing with the same problem over and over. A very long term block may be the only avenue left open and I hope you understand that. There is no need to respond to me at all regarding this, what's being asked of you is to simply stop engaging in this sort of editing. It's entirely in your hands. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at WBBM-TV. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! • 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Note, I suspect this editor to be editing also using the IP: 99.190.107.37 because the edits are very similar in nature (see here and here.) Isn't this sockpuppetry? I'm not accusing or attempting to cause problems, but the edits are similar and this user's history suggests a look. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! • 01:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 01:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
No, my main IP has been blocked since November and expires in May. I have been undoing this person's edits b/c there is no proof or aticles stating what they are editing to the current stations. Thank You :) TVFAN24 (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
While you may not have been the IP editor, your edit still violated BLP, same as his/hers did. On top of that, they were essentially the same edit, so I am curious/suspicious about it. I am not attempting to cause problems, I am just following procedure to attempt to make Wikipedia a better place. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! • 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 05:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Nightline. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sunset Beach (TV series)

Hello. Is there a reason you keep removing the "status" parameter in the infobox on the Sunset Beach article? You have done so twice without leaving an edit summary. The parameter is a standard part of the TV infobox, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you have seemingly have issue with it. The series is no longer airing so "ended" is the acceptable wording in this case. Please stop removing the parameter without a valid reason as it is disruptive. Thank you. Pinkadelica♣ 22:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to remove the parameter nor is the fact that "everyone knows that it has ended". What everyone knows is not for us to guess. I presume other articles don't have the status because they have earlier versions of the infobox which didn't contain the status option. That means that the status in infoboxes should stay in articles that already have them and those that don't contain it need to be updated. Pinkadelica♣ 23:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to TV Guide Network. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deconstructhis (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Formats

The format of the page was discussed when the page was created. Changing the format without discussing it first is bad practice. The consensus agreed upon was to use the current format. If you look at the talk page, you will see where others have tried to change it, and it has been reverted back. It was also pointed out there that it does not matter what other soap operas are doing. Each article exists separately, and what other articles are doing has no bearing. Your efforts are certainly appreciated, but you should discuss major changes on the talk page first. Thank you :) Rm994 (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TVFAN24/Archive_1&oldid=1148683864"