User talk:Spshu

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:Spshu reported by User:107.242.125.34. Thank you. 107.242.125.34 (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PTEN

The Prime Time Entertainment Network was just a blanket title for syndicated programming used by Warner Brothers. It was NOT a full-fledged network, even though several stations who carried PTEN-branded programming (like WWOR) eventually joined UPN in 1995. I have corrected this fact. Rollosmokes 17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a "blanket title for sydnicated programming" until CC/United Television pull out. The Federal Trade Commission & Federal Communication Commission does not consider a "TV Network" a TV Network untill it offers 15 hours of prime time(note 14) (7 PM to 11 PM) programming. I remember when the WB and UPN where starting up and that the were not offically considered networks. PTEN was structured the same way MyNetworkTV (MNTV) is now, sydnicated arm (20th Television) together with TV Station company consoritium (Fox Station Group). The Neworks prime time hourly offerings: MNTV 12, the CW 13, Fox 15, ABC 22, CBS 22, NBC 22. I remember reference when UPN and the WB were starting up that they were not offical networks as they were below the specified hours but people considered them networks and as far as I know they never exceed 15 hours of programming. So as it stands you would have to remove MNTV, UPN, WB and CW as networks. But I think that most people would consider them as networks, since that was the intent when they were started as the affiliates got the whole programming. Spshu 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal -- You are a new user, as you claim, so who are you to give me a "warning" about deleting information? You're not an administrator, so don't act like one. Also, don't act as if you're: 1) trying to prove a point and 2) claiming ownership of any and all articles tied in to PTEN so you can prove your point.

The fact is this: Fox, UPN, WB, and CW were and are NETWORKS, despite programming the minimum required prime-time hours as dictated by the FCC. PTEN was NOT A NETWORK. I'm sticking to that, and we can take this debate to the WikiProject Television Stations group for further debate. Rollosmokes 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to WWOR-TV, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeutralHomer ^T:C 14:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am not a new user. Please stop vandalizing my talk page. Spshu 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I...you are vandalising the WWOR-TV page, hence the warning. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warning against vandalism on your talk page, NeutralHomer; really rich when you have no clue. That is what Rollosmokes did when originally confronted with warnings against his vandalism of multiple pages while he entreated that the discussion should go to the TV Station project talk page. (Perhaps, you should read above what he had to say about that. And effectively YOU now.) Now the both of you refuse to acknowledge the discussion there that PTEN is a network. Spshu 15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you vandalise any page with by adding PTEN to it without external (meaning information outside of Wikipedia) proof, you will be reported to AIV for vandalism and blocked. Simple as that....curb this behaviour now before it costs you. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will stop this now!! The proof is in the archive TV Station discussion that you refuse to read. Spshu 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is on Wikipedia...I said off Wikipedia. But I stand by what I said. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 15:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and your comment still indicate that you have not read the previous discussion as it does link to outside sources. Spshu 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....from the Chris-Craft Industries page here on Wikipedia: "In the early 1990's, Chris-Craft Television formed an alternative programming consortium, Prime Time Entertainment Network, with other station groups and Warner Bros. Domestic Television that was planned to expand into the fifth television network but fizzled into a syndication brand."

Also, a quick check of many TV Guide websites for the New York area (WWOR), Chicago area (WPWR) and Philly area (WPHL) show that between '93 and '95 all three of those stations were Independent and make no mention of PTEN. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 15:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as an administrator and someone who contributed to the PTEN discussion that PTEN is a network. Rollosmokes reverted my restoration of WWOR-TV PTEN affiliation. Then Neutralhomer attacks me as a vandal and refuses to look at the previous discussion that was archived. Now Neturalhomer is making threats to have me banned for his failure to follow the discussion and proof of PTEN's network status. Spshu 15:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spshu,

Thanks for your note. I've sent NH the external link, and asked him not to give out vandalism warnings to good-faith contributors like yourself. It's clear from the link that PTEN was trying to launch a network. It is also clear they quickly (within a couple of years) failed. I am confident we can establish some sort of agreement about this on WT:TVS. Do not revert these users until we can come to some agreement. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woolworth at Genesee Valley

Are you sure that Woolworth at Genesee Valley Center was replaced with KB Toys and other stores? Everyone I know says it was cut into smaller stores (possibly the Waldenbooks that you mentioned), and that after those smaller stores left, the former Woolworth was turned into Steve & Barry's. 68.188.191.9 12:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonably sure. As I remember when Woolworth closing and I was walking away from Sears, Woolworth was on my right. That would make it on the West side while Steve and Barry's replaced Waldenbooks and a craft store on the opposite side. Spshu 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'll look into it. By the way, I'm the same person as 68.188.191.9 above; I keep forgetting to log in. TenPoundHammer 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I checked with my aunt. I know this is about a month late, but at least now I have an answer. My aunt used to work at the mall in the 1970s, and she's positive that Woolworth was where Steve & Barry's is now. According to her, Waldenbooks was cut up into Waldenbooks and a craft shop and such before Steve & Barry's took the spot. TenPoundHammer 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFTY and the sale of Clear Channel stations to Newport

You changed the owner of KFTY from Clear Channel to Newport; however, that information is not correct. The sale of the station (and others) from Clear Channel to Newport has not been approved by the FCC, even though Newport has already applied to sell KFTY to LK. The station should still list Clear Channel as its owner, not Newport. Please be more careful and verify your information before adding it to articles. Thanks. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they were already selling stations from the Clear Channel (with no condition information at Broadcast & Cable's website), the FCC website lacking any meaningful info & the sale of the Bluestone stations, it seem that it is likely the Clear Channel were already or soon to be in Newport's possession. Spshu 14:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation revert

You recently reverted my edit that disambiguated Avengers on Demolition Man (comics). I disambiguated the wikilink again to direct it to the Avengers (comics) page instead of the Avengers disambiguation page. It is far better to be directed to the actual page mentioned than to have to go through a disambiguation page to find the page you are looking for. Aspects (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers

Good work on the content regarding the Avengers. Sorry we've gotten off on the wrong foot as it were, but your work regarding much of that content has been quite good and useful. I wish controversial subjects like certain possible members didn't exist, but it seems that sort of thing is, at least now, unavoidable, given the apparent contradictions to date. If and when the Sourcebook is gotten and it is found to verify or not verify a certain party's membership, I do think that some sort of accomodation of it would be required, maybe using a formula like that I proposed on the talk page in question. That sort of statement, indicating that the official view of given storylines may have been changed since the text was first written, would probably be the clearest way out. I do hope you can understand though that as Hiding has said it isn't really that anyone wants to disagree with you or anyone else, it's just that we think we are bound by honor and the policies of wikipedia to acknowledge what the experts say, in this case a recent editor and writer, whether they agree with what was said earlier or not. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers

Thanks for the note. I dropped a note in at WT:CMC. (Emperor (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. 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. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation of D-Man's Membership Status

Hello, I have accepted this case on behalf of the Mediation Cabal. I have left comments here. Please try and remain civil throughout the discussion. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avengers Members

Hello, I know that you have had some issues, with edits made to the List of Avengers members article in the past. I am writing to remind you, that when there is a dispute, proper etiquette is to discuss it on the talk page, before entering into an edit war. Please refer to the talk page, for the consensus that was made, on the reversion of your edits to this article. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Political Party Template

Hey I fixed it for you... there was just no metadata template for the Know Nothing party yet (look at its talk page and you'll see what I'm talking about)... that was the problem.

So if you go look at it now it should be fine.

Thanks for letting me know.

-Prezboy1 talk 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct-co. template

Hey, great new template -- an informative idea. It needs some tweaking (image to be centered, non-used lines to disappear until they're filled). Do you know how to do this, or can you point me to template code? Thanks! --Tenebrae (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have general just use what is available. Have made a few templates but images & hidding lines until used is a bit beyond my skills. Links to templates appear at the bottom of the edit this page. Here is the Template:Infobox_Defunct_company. Spshu (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Burger

Thank you for update and clean up on Halo Burger CFBancroft (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you go to Halo Burger on Linden Road because of you live that area and take photo of Plague that said "1983 Voted Flint's #1 hamburger by a Flint Journal Newspaper survey" and upload photo snap here so that way other people will see and believe and remove "citation needed" by the way you did wonderful job! CFBancroft (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you did update two refer on Halo Burger. Thank YOU! CFBancroft (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Founding year

The founding year for Halo Burger, which they clearly indicate on their logo, is 1923. Period. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logos and self source (ie. Haloburger) material are general not accepted as sources. Spshu (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the history page of the official web site, which I added as a supporting citation, is acceptable as a source as well as journalistic citations which I added as well. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any thing from the official website is self source as I just pointed out. Are thusly telling me that this source (Gary Flinn (2004-05-21). "A Tasty Part of Flint History". Flinn's Journal. Gary Flinn. http://home.comcast.net/~steelbeard1/flinn052104.htm. Retrieved 2008-05-30.) is false? Which most of the earlier part is based on and the dates I use in the founded dates. Spshu (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that. I am Gary Flinn. Quoting from my own text from YOUR link: " In 1951, Vernor’s moved the oak barrels from the site and James Vernor II sold the sandwich shop to Bill Thomas, the manager of Kewpee Hamburgs, a downtown Flint fixture since 1923." That should settle things once and for all.

No it does not. As per your article, Thomas did not open Kewpee's in 1923 and did not own that location until 1944 and was not Haloburger until 1967. All in your article. Each change is noted my version. Your are making a mountain out of a mole hill. In this case, Haloburger didn't come full formed as per your article; it was more evoluationary. I don't understand why in the world you don't understand your own article!!!! Spshu (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in ownership do not change the founding year. The name change in 1967 did not affect the fact that the management and food was exactly the same before and after the name change. The sale to Dortch Enterprises after the piece was written does not affect the founding year either. I reported the edit war on Halo Burger's official Facebook page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Thomas did not own Kewpees at all. He just had the rights to use the name; he was a licensee. Just as you would not consider a local franchisee of McDonald's as actually being McDonalds. Ed Adams of Toledo, Ohio owned Kewpee in 1945, not Thomas. Reporting the edit war on Halo Burger's Facebook page is meaningless and anti-wikipedian. Spshu (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Thomas did own the original Harrison Street restaurant which was founded in 1923 and the burger is still called the QP. Who owns the name is secondary to the restaurant itself. The restaurant is what the article is about, not the restaurant's name. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That restaurant no longer exists. Spshu (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the business still does. My article stated that the staff moved into the new East Court Street Halo Burger location. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure that business still exist as it is in Ohio called Kewpee. But a new location is not that restaurant which is what you claimed above nor is the staff the restaurant. Spshu (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original restaurant was FORCED to move because the building was condemned to make wasy for the University of Michigan--Flint campus development. So the staff was moved to the new east side location. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First you state it is about the "original Harrison Street restaurant" then its is about "But the business still does." That is what I am pointing out. You have no clue. Spshu (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YOU have no clue. The Kewpee article states: The original Flint location changed its name to Bill Thomas' Halo Burger which is still a thriving business, but not at the original location which was torn down in 1979. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't even respond to the point, I made. You say it isn't the business its the restaurant, then you say its the business. Which is it? Then you attack me as clueless. How rich. With this tantrum, I guess I don't know why I ever support your article as an source. You don't even understand your own source, like I point out at Talk:Halo Burger. Spshu (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about both. Halo Burger was founded in 1923 as Kewpee. Kewpee employee Bill Thomas bought the restuarant in 1944 which changed its name in 1967 and was sold by the Thomas family in 2010. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right then the restaurant started in 1923, Thomas' business that became Haloburger started in 1944 thus the multiple years in the foundation. But, you come out against the business notion then you switch positions back and forth. Spshu (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this to another restaurant chain which evolved. Big Boy Restaurants was originally Bob's Pantry in 1936 and Big Boy is the name of their flagship hamburger. Even though the restaurant chain was officially renamed Big Boy in 2000, the founding year is still 1936. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend. It looks like you're edit warring over trivia in mainspace on the Halo Burger article. Please take it to the talk page and work out your disagreements with the other editor there. Also, be advised that it is not kosher to raise a posse to win an edit war. There are no fundamental, insolvable issues here — just talk to the dude and work it out, okay? Carrite (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who you are address, me or Steelbeard1. As he directly tried to "raise a posse to win an edit war." starting with User talk:TenPoundHammer#Halo Burger. Also Rich Farmbrough, GrahamHardy, Denisarona. Spshu (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And reports me to HB's Facebook page. Spshu (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing

Please do not remove valid references from an article. I don't see any reason why you should have to do so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the info box is including in the body of the article, I found some of the editors I work with don't mind them not be recited in the infobox. Spshu (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The present form is just fine, though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

No other article has a timeline. The one that's there is 100% redundant to the rest of the article. Why should it exist? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has to do with the argument over the founding date of Halo Burger, whether it started in 1923 as advertised or in 1944 when Bill Thomas purchased the original location. Spshu (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not incorporate that elsewhere in the article and say something like "Some sources say that Halo Burger was begun in 1923, others say 1944"? It'd look a lot more "professional" IMO and eliminate the superfluous timeline. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logos do not lie. Read it. It says "Since 1923." Can that be any more plain? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer, that is what is it was to begin with plus the "easter egg" of the link from the founding year to that section as the discussion leaded to the majority indicating only one year should be listed in the ibox as I was listing two. Steelbeard1 then expanded the founding section into a timeline section. Spshu (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:BTHaloburger.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BTHaloburger.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbeard1/Halo Burger

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

I have this other, editor Steelbeard1, has argued over fact of Halo Burger's founding but fails to comprend what any one is saying. The 3RR page always says if it content then go to mediation. He was also aware of his edit warring as going as far as to attempt to enlist others in his edit warring: TenPoundHammer, Rich Farmbrough, GrahamHardy, Denisarona. And reports me to HB's Facebook page.

Because there was content, I posted notices on the various projects/taskforces listed on the talk page. While the newcommers indicated that I was right, they indicted that one only year should be in the infobox as the rest would be in the article. So I devised a compromise to end the repetitive and debunked arguments.

He is now edit warring over the article being move to the Economy of Flint, Michigan instead of the Flint, Michigan Catagory which is basically in as it is a subcat. of Flint, Michigan.

I guess I am at complete loss on how to deal with him. Spshu (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you talked to him about this issue directly/on his talk page? If you have, and there's not been a satisfactory resolution, then you could make a post on the edit war noticeboard to get community consensus for a course of action. Does this help? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old Grand Blanc location an IHOP?

I'm familiar with Grand Blanc back then and Genesee County NEVER had an IHOP until this year. The Halo Burger which was in downtown Grand Blanc was a Perkins Pancake House. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would this citation work? "perkins+pancake"&dq=11351+%2B+"perkins+pancake"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJudjp8trQAhWH5IMKHXtqA7QQ6AEIHDAA Steelbeard1 The citation you give clearly gives incorrect info. (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know the writer of the erroneous article you are citing and he is trying to get that piece corrected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A) Your personal knowledge is not verifiable, so your personal statement does not trump a reliable source like the Flint Journal. B) I already check your Flint Suburban Directory which has nothing about what replaced the Perkins Pancake House, so no that and the Angelfire website (unreliable) do not constitute sources that indicated it took over a Perkins.

Steelbeard1's personal knowledge is certainly verifiable as I am the author of the mlive piece in question. The source was never the Flint Journal, that's a misconception. Michigan Appetite was a blog I wrote on occasion for mlive. (The main address for it is http://blog.mlive.com/michigan_appetite/ which includes the word "blog".) I never wrote for the Flint Journal, and have never even set foot in the building. Having grown up in Grand Blanc my family ate at the restaurant in question many times. But it was my own mind that guessed it was an IHOP as I was probably only twelve at the time. That was a lot of years ago, and the mind plays tricks. That I guessed at what kind of restaurant it was when writing that blog entry is the real cause of what's going on here. Now Spshu, back on 5 April 2012 on the Halo Burger Talk page you wrote "... marketing material like a logo are not usable sources on Wikipedia. Nor are blogs." As Michigan Appetite was a simple blog, not anything journalistic whatsoever, and does include numerous other errors I can no longer fix, I have removed the reference to my mlive blog piece about the Grand Blanc location previously being an IHOP. I hope to get to the Bentley Historical Library in Ann Arbor soon where the R.L. Polk city directories are archived, and intend to locate a hard reference. Lunapiertech (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Lunapiertech:, Steelbeard1's personal knowledge is not verifiable (that is against WP:VER). He has even been contradictory with his own articles. Mlive was run on blog software, but is a group of newspapers not a web log, so showing "blog" in the url doesn't undermine one way or another. And I don't need to be quote my own words back to me, I am quite aware that I use WP standards (WP:BLOGS). All you had to do was to indicate that Michigan Appetite was a true blog that was not subject to editorial controls. I already remove references to the IHOP, you removed that it was a pancake house, which I changed it to as to end the argument with Steelbeard1. Although he continued arguing. Please actually read what you are removing (" where it took over a former pancake house restaurant". - that does not say IHOP). Steelbeard1 already located them if you bother to read this exchange, he has just failed to edit them. He is, I guess, expecting me to do the work. Spshu (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote above was not abusive whatsoever, merely explained. Your language here is the opposite. Again you are not showing good faith. Your attitude matters.Lunapiertech (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. It was you talked down to me by throwing my words back at me. And I "merely explained" how you were wrong/in error. I did not say you were abusive - again this you assuming bad faith -just that you should read things more carefully. Point out WP rules/guideline is abusive? Saying I am "abusive" shows your attitude is bad, so how about "Your attitude matters". Again you are assuming bad faith not good faith, thus your "Vindictive Editing" rant with out prove and made with false statements. Don't say any thing more here. Spshu (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This citation at "11351"+%2B+"old+bridge"&dq="11351"+%2B+"old+bridge"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWtZWa3t7QAhVPwWMKHRy-D1AQ6AEIGjAA proves that 11351 S. Saginaw in Grand Blanc which was Perkins Pancake House became a Halo Burger. So there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rollosmokes

I'll note it there, but really, as long as he's not requesting unblock again it's not relevant. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Scouting articles

I undid all of your moves. The naming has been discussed within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting several times; since there a very little sources for English translations of associations' names, the project decided to keep article titles in the original language until there is real use of the English translation. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article names#Main Points. All German associations use multiple translations in their official documents depending on the translator. --jergen (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in the English language Wikipedia must be named in English per Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Naming conventions, so the need is for it to be in English to have an article. I see some of the discussion here. Those article use those names, so if the English language names are a problem they should be remove or all English versions should be added to the article. Secondly, selecting one English translation of the name for the article hopefully the most used translation then setting up redirects for the other translations would work.Spshu (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jergen is right in this, the name must be official or commonly used. If there are multiple equivalents, then the native name shall be used. We don't call sushi vinegared rice ball wrapped in seaweed with some sort of seafood on top. In cases where the name is not commonly translated into English, the native name stays. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But sushi has been adopted into the English language same as Squash_(plant), Moccasin (footwear) and many other words. Like I pointed out that no one is challenging the translation directly in the individual articles. In the case of Ring deutscher Pfadfinderverbände, German Scout Federation is on its wikipedia page and is used on |its offical website. Spshu (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a completly different translation in a more recent official English presentation [1]: "Union of German Boy Scout/Girl Guide Associations". Can you decide which to choose? I can't. The same applies for all moved German associations. As for the Estonian Eesti Skautide Ühing there is no translation on its website, so you used an approximate translation - this is unencyclopedic in my eyes.

And you interpretation of the naming policy is strange. It is clearly stated that articles should use the "more commonly recognized" variant, be it either English or the original language. --jergen (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that my interperation of the naming policy is strange. The policy states:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

So, I guess you either use WOSM's naming convention or word for word order might make sense too. Spshu (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand you correctly saying: WOSM is a reliable source, but the German organization using also a second differing translation itself is not reliable? That is quite strange. --jergen (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Germany Language sentence order of the words are not as important as it is in the English language. Secondly for additional translation can be set up as redirects and indicated in the article. I just saying that using WOSM's translation, as most people might find these to be the most easily recognizable translation for the organizations' name as WOSM is a recognized international organization for WOSM's members. None of the other translations would be discounted they would just be used as redirects and indicated in the article. Spshu (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In the Germany Language sentence order of the words are not as important as it is in the English language." - This is utter rubbish (excuse my language). Word order has the same importantance as in English.

I'll stop discussing here. If you want to move associations article come ahead and propose an different approach on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Scouting. You proposal should not only include members of WOSM, but also cover members of WAGGGS as well as the numerous independent organizations. This is not do delay the discussion but to reach more users and to have more input. --jergen (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect as far as the difference between German language and English language in word order -- see: German_language#Word_order. Spshu (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That applies only within full sentences but I can't see a verb in Ring deutsche Pfadfinderverbände. --jergen (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adair Tishler

Using a non-free image in the infobox is a clear policy violation. As to whether a free image is possible, Getty images manages to have taken 16 photos of her at public events without stalking her. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Getty Images going to give us a photo for the Article? ...... I think not. Second, part of stalking is trying to figure out were she is going to be and these public events generally (I would assume) don't just hand out guest list. Getty Images is just going to be at all these events regardless and probably have arrangement for robe/carpet side positioning which any joe smoe can not get. Third, using a non-free image in the infobox is not a clear policy violation, see Wikipedia:NFCC#3. Since it is already used in her Heroes character article, it is as recommend in 7. "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." reducing the likely hood of problems with additional "non-free content". If non-free images are completely a problem then I started remove images and links to images for logos of TV stations, derivied works from else were like flags, etc. I will send them all your way, deal? Spshu (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then also why have you remove it from the Molly Walker article? Spshu (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

standard official names of townships are: (Charter) Township of Name

Regarding this edit. Is there some evidence for this? The township doesn't appear to use that form. While I have not seen the township charter for Vienna Township, I have looked at others that were available online, and there are some which do not use that form. That is, there are cases where the official charter creating the charter township does not use that form. So unless there is evidence that that is the official name, I don't think it is safe to assume that there is a "standard" official name. older ≠ wiser 21:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here Vennia Township uses Charter Township of Vienna. Um, no direct evidence of this standard. It is interesting about the official township charters that you have seen. --Quick lookup-- OK, The Charter Township Act 359 of 1947 supports my statement that it is standard for "charter township of ............................". So the charters that do not use that form fail to follow the Act and have it through the act by default, I would guess or were perhaps done before this section was ammended to included said language. Spshu (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that. That's interesting. I'll have to see if I can recall where I came across township charters that were styled differently. older ≠ wiser 22:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

I'm not at all sure you have the correct understanding of wiki naming convention. London is not London, Middlesex or New York is not New York, New York. In my opinion duffield should have been left as it was as it was a) first there in wikipedia, b) larger and c) older. Its likely that your area around a road called Duffield Road is named after Duffield near Derby and its 1000 year old name. Can you check your sources for your policy interpretation. Victuallers (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing exceptions to the naming convention. It has to be a notable city like London or New York (which is at New York City as there is the state). See England naming convention page as city/village/town, ceremonial county is consist the correct naming convention.Spshu (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did look at the conventions and there is no mention of notability that I can see. It says "Where possible, articles on places in the United Kingdom should go under placename."

If I look at what links to the Duffield page then there are about 50 or so links which as far as I can see all point to Duffield in Derbyshire. There are also 5 or six other article that begin Duffield .... these all concern the place in Derbyshire. I suggest that you or I add a disambiguation page. if there are going to be 2 articles or more If you look at how New York or Sheffield have their pages then there is a disambiguation page. This is a bit over the top as Duffield, Michigan does not yet have an article but I guess you are going to write one. If not then a hat note would be sufficient. Obviously it cannot be left as it is Victuallers (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where possible, articles on places in the United Kingdom should go under placename. Where disambiguation is needed, a different system exists in each of the home nations.

And the general rule:

The general rule is to name an article about a city or town with a name that does not conflict with any other town or concept as city name. The rest of this naming convention contains guidelines about naming the articles where disambiguation is required or specific national conventions. Articles about cities and towns in some countries should be "pre-disambiguated", by having the article named as if there is a name conflict, even if one is not known at the time of writing the article. In these cases, a redirect should usually be created at the primary name, pointing to the new article, until such time as a disambiguation page is actually required.

Thank you I have left Duffield Derbyshire and created a disambigation page as seen at other UK places where there is a name clash. I have left an explanation at Duffield, Derbyshire talk page .... This page used to be at Duffield but was moved to Duffield, Derbyshire when a disambiguation page was created at Duffield. This broke all the existing wiki links. As a compromise I have created a more complete Duffield Disambiguation page at Duffield (disambiguation) and pointed the empty Duffield article at the Duffield, Derbyshire page. This will repair the existing links Victuallers (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That just fine. Spshu (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deford, Michigan

Move to Deford, Michigan talk page.

Dayne Walling

I see that you've restarted the Dayne Walling article, now that he has a stronger claim to notability. If you would like any of the information from the previously deleted version, drop a note on my page and I'll get it for you. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you deleted anything negative about Dayne Walling. His documented failures as the mayor of Flint should be placed in his record. Under his leadership crime has past record's in the history of the city. Homicide alone doubled under his failed leadership. I am not sure who you are but documented information should be allowed in this profile.

No, you are see me remove unsourced information (as indicated in the 2nd edit Undid revision summary as it should have been in the first) that you tried to insert into sourced information. Please see WP:BLP as information in a Biographies of living persons must be source so as to not be original research and verifiable. Second, he is currently basic an honorific mayor as his powers have been limited under the emergency manager (EM) law. He doesn't even have any say in the public safety even with the new expanded limited authority he has been granted by the EM. Spshu (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lotharingia Infoboxes

Two editors have removed one infobox from the article Lotharingia, and you have the nerve to add two? Both of which do nothing to clarify a complex subject. You are not helping the encyclopedia. Srnec (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

President pro tempore of the United States Senate

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that your edits to President pro tempore of the United States Senate seem to be causing some error messages with the reference section. I can't figure out what exactly you were trying to do. Cheers! meamemg (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:United States federal executive departments#"Federal" or "National"?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States federal executive departments#"Federal" or "National"?. —Markles 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

AfD nomination of New United States Football League

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is New United States Football League. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New United States Football League. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of New United States Football League for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article New United States Football League, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New United States Football League until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Name (was: Federation Internationale de l'Automobile)

Hi. I can see why you might think that this is not the most appropriate name for the article, but in my experience it is far more commonly used in English language sources on this topic than the English translation. A Google search (restricted to English language pages) shows a 6 to 1 ratio in favour of "Federation Internationale de l'Automobile" over "International Automobile Federation" (See this vs this). It rises to 10 to 1 if not restricted to English language.

WP:EN does not, as far as I can see, say that articles must be named in the English language. It does say "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". There must be some, but I can't think of any reliable sources on motorsport that use the English language version.

Cheers 4u1e (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There are several active wikiprojects covering this topic - if you're not convinced by my arguments, the most appropriate one to discuss it at is probably WP:MOTOR. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google search are not neccessarily consider valid sources, but you should note that the search on International Automobile Federation brings up the FIA website as the first item. Second, an About.com article about the organization uses International Automobile Federation and the article is by Brad Spurgeon, which is identified by About as a journalist "covering Formula 1 for the International Herald Tribune since 1993, and for The New York Times since 1999." Spshu (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No but google searches are valid indicators of how widely terms are used on the internet, which is one indication of how widespread they are generally. Of course the first google result for International Automobile Federation is the FIA site! What else would it be? That tells us nothing about the relative usage of the terms, though. Perhaps more relevant is the fact the english language term does not appear at all at the official website of the FIA's most famous racing category (Formula One), and only four times at the FIA's own (english language) site. That's not the whole story either of course. As I said, some sources do use IAF, but about.com is hardly the most authoritative source in this respect! There's a lot more that could be said, but I'm out of time for the minute. We can continue the discussion later if you wish. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar topic, I undid your move of FIFA for similar reasons. FIFA is clearly the common name for the organization. Please seek consensus before moving articles. Thank you. --John (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You also moved Fédération internationale des associations vexillologiques to the English translation of its name. Not a topic I know anything about, but I was curious about all these moves. Turns out the constitution of the FIAV says (para 1): "The name of this association is the Fédération internationale des associations vexillologiques, which is abbreviated as “FIAV.” The official translations of FIAV's name are: International Federation of Vexillological Associations (English);" etc. Now that's official name, not most common usage, but your edit summary said " Move to its correct and official English name". I suggest you move that one back as well, and I'm afraid I have to agree with John that you should talk to others before making changes like this. Certainly in the case of the FIA and FIFA there are plenty of knowledgeable editors who could have contributed to a discussion. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any need for a discussion. It is following the policy as I pointed out 4ule1 so no "cheers" either you follow policy of the Wikipedia or you decide not to contribute any more. The FIAV official was attempting to incorrectly used FIA and FIFA as a reason not to follow to policy of English naming. You have not given an alternative prefered English name for FIA or FIFA. John, you have bother to read common name fully as you will find the Foreign names and anglicization. Spshu (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can still find them by their French name as a move sets up a forwarding. Also, the FIAV also has an official English name while FIA and FIFA might under some subsection I over looked do to their longer usage and no official English name, FIAV belongs under its official English name. Spshu (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, John, the common name section you cite indicates that the name of the article should be in the most common ENGLISH name. Spshu (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which for the example we were talking about is clearly FIFA. There is absolutely a need to discuss potentially controversial moves like this before making them. --John (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu - 'Cheers', in my own personal usage at least, should be read as 'thanks' or 'Best regards' or whatever the locally acceptable signing off phrase would be. My apologies that it appears to have caused offence. None was intended.

I accept that you are following what you believe to be policy, but you are reading something into the guidance that I simply cannot see there. The Foreign names and anglicization link you provide does not say that names must be in the English language. It does say that spelling should follow English language usage (not the same thing), that Latin transliteration should be used (not relevant here) and that "whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, [should] follow English-language usage". Note that it says "whether". As I've explained above, it happens that for the FIA the French language version is the more common English language usage.

Yes, you can still find the articles by their French language names, but you can now still find them by their English language translations, so that makes no odds.

I think where we're differing is that you are reading "most common English language name" to mean most common translation of the name into the English languge, where I would read it (supported I think by all the hints about how to decide whether to translate or not) as the most common name in use in the English language, which could actually be be in German (Reichstag) , Zulu (vuvuzela) or Narn (Spoo, I think), depending on the topic.

If you're not persuaded, then by all means let's discuss this at the appropriate forum, but the relevant communities must be involved for changes like this where (since two experienced editors disagree with you) your interpretation is not obviously the correct one. Best regards :) 4u1e (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Spshu, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Spshu/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

What you talking bout?Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas/Seaboard

Hi, Spshu. I'd like to ask about this move to Seaboard Periodicals, which, as you note, is the formal name of the company. However, under Wikipedia naming conventions, we're supposed to use the subject's common name, and this company is routinely referred to as Atlas/Seaboard. Certainly, a change of this magnitude probably shouldn't have been undertaken without discussion on the talk page, for this very reason. Let's please discuss. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to have heard from you, since you were editing at the time I posted the above. According to WP:COMMONNAME, we must title articles with the name by which something is commonly known. This company is best known as Atlas/Seaboard. I point to these three examples, both Web-based and from print journalism by an expert source (Comic Book Artist magazine) which turn up among the first Google hits:

http://atlaschecklist.50webs.com/Atlas_Seaboard_Comics_Index.html

An Unofficial Atlas/Seaboard Checklist

http://twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/16rovin.html

"Rise & Fall of Rovin's Empire" A candid conversation with Atlas/Seaboard editor Jeff Rovin Conducted by Jon B. Cooke Transcribed by Jon B. Knutson

In print: "Vengeance, Incorporated: A history of the short-lived comics publisher, Atlas/Seaboard"

by Jon B. Cooke Comic Book Artist #16

I would also say that a move of this magnitude should not have been taken unilaterally, with no discussion whatsoever. Atlas/Seaboard is unquestionably the common name by which this company is known. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfPP request

See [2]. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Nice add with that subhead — "Culture" is indeed distinct from "History." My compliments. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. That was rather an unpleasant note you left on my talk page. And I was entirely sincere in my post above. I'm sure there was another way to say "If you bothered to read my edit" at Marvel Entertainment ... especially since there are two articles for Marvel Entertainment.

Regardless: You seem like a very knowledgeable editor when it comes to piercing corporate veils, and I, for one, wholeheartedly welcome someone with this much-needed expertise. I would ask that we all take a breath and realize that we're all on the same side. We won't always agree — no two editors do — but I respect your work; I came out and said so in a specific instance above, when there was no need for me to. Accept a gesture of good faith. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spshu,

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I can take a look at the situation, but I'm not sure what you want me to do here. It looks as if there were uncivil accusations from both sides, but the above comment from Tenebrae looks quite kind, and written by someone willing to work with you to improve the article. I do not see very recent discussions anywhere, which is a problem in this type of dispute. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamworks

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on DreamWorks. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cadence

I was being very polite and you jumped down my throat. You are a mean person and you do article owning. You do it to other people and you are doing it here. You never want anyone to edit your work. And may I say that you are not a good writer because you writing is convoluted, it doesn't follow a straight line, it leaves things out and you misuse words. Other editors have trouble with you, too, I can see. --Farpointer (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you bother to read your talk page, I point out how you destroy the article and did not improve the article. You were not polite at all and you have attacked me again ("mean person" and "you are not a good writer..."). Others have problems with me because I follow the rules and don't just cave for them. --Spshu (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just pointed out spelling, style and guideline errors in my edit summary. Just because you can't have your way doesn't mean another editor "destroyed" an article! Can't you at least fix those basic things I point out in the edit summary? And no, owning, which I see you do a lot, isn't following the rules. It's just the opposite. We're supposed to collaborate. But you have an anger problem. I see you jumped down the throat of someone above who was being nice to you. But don't worry about me. I'm staying far away from you.

Just please try to understand that not every word you write is perfect! "loaned $5 million into"? What kind of English usage is that? It's "loaned to" not "loaned into". I know you don't believe it, but there is a lot of bad writing in there just like that. I'm sorry you don't see it. --Farpointer (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close to 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the three reverts you have made at Cadence Industries. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, placing something on her (her?) talk page is how things should go, via discussion. I'll go take a look.

Actually, too, I've been painstakingly going through things point by point at the Cadence Industries RfC I called in the hope of you two finding middle ground, and most, not all, but most of her points seem correct. I haven't gotten down to her Pocket Books inclusion yet on the point-by-points, though a cursory glance there mentions Curtis Books. That may well be unrelated to Curtis Magazines and Curtis Circulation; "Curtis" is a common name. In the meantime, why not take a look at the point-by-point and comment (briefly, I would ask, like the comments that are there now), --Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very encouraged by the Cadence Industries RfC so far, and I appreciate your efforts there. As I continue to say, I sincerely believe your familiarity with and knowledge of corporate structure and history makes you a valuable contributor, IMHO. Being able to work with other people is very important as well.

I have just left a note asking User:Farpointer, who has so far stayed away from the discussion, to join it, and I say there that both of you are people of good will and I believe that a better article will come out of both of you working together than either of you working alone. As a journalist, I know I'm always better with a good editor or even copy editor — just another set of eyes to look at something from a fresh perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Spshu. I've left a note at Farpointer's talk page, urging her to join the discussion at Cadence. Haven't heard anything after a day or two. Maybe if you leave her a neutral, cordial note, it'll help, if she's gotten spooked? It's just a suggestion; I honestly believe the article will be better if the two of you help edit each other. Also: What do you think of the two compromise sentences I've constructed so far? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Spshu. Farpointer came to Talk:Cadence Industries, and since everyone seems to agree on the Pocket Books paragraph being wrong, I've gone ahead and taken it out. I've also added the Cadence logo and the Perfect Film & Chemical logo, since those seemed like non-controversial edits. You and I seem to be collaborating well together, and I'm glad of that. What do you think of the points and compromise sentences I've suggested at Talk:Cadence Industries? With genuine regard, --Tenebrae (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that the Cadence logo is for the current company with that name in the distribution and assembly of telecom equipment founded in 2007. Not sure how we hand that when the current company's only claim to fame is having the same name as a previously existing company. Spshu (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great catch. Geez, I feel like a dummy -- I'd gotten that logo from the Comics Alliance article that was footnoted, and didn't check to make sure the Comics Alliance writer knew what he was talking about. I'll take it down immediately. Now this is what I'm talking about — I'm really enjoying this collaboration, and I appreciate your knowledge of corporations. On it! --Tenebrae (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Circle / Timely

Hi. I'm not sure this is precisely correct. International Catalogue, which makes that statement, says its taking its information from Nevins. But Nevins is referring to Timely Publications, the overall pulp and comics publisher, and not the Timely Comics imprint: "Timely Publications (as Goodman's group had become known; before this it was known as "Red Circle" because of the logo that Goodman had put on his pulp magazines)." And Bellman refers to "a multitude of corporate entities (including Red Circle Comics) all producing the same product," just as Goodman had done with Azimuth, Zenith, etc. under the Atlas Comics imprint.

If you go to the Grand Comics Database, there's no listing for Red Circle as a publisher (except related to Archie Comics decades later) and the only "indicia publisher" paper corp. related to Goodman is a handful of 1950s Atlas comics. And Marvel Comics #1 was published by Timely Publications. (See GCD here), and there was no red circle on any subsequent issues. (See GCD here.) Goodman's pulps have a red circle on their covers, and that's what Nevins is referring to. As for Bellman, as I said, the only Red Circle Comics that Goodman published were a handful of Atlas titles in the 1950s.

I'd like to discuss this with you first before I edit that line. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm thinking of, specifically, is to put the Nevins and Bellman quotes and the GCD data into a footnote and only mention Red Circle there, since neither GCD and nor any other standard source that I can find supports that Timely Comics was originally known as Red Circle Comics. These sources includes Les Daniels' Marvel Five Fabulous Decades; Marvel Chronicle; and Peter Sanderson's Marvel Universe. The Daniels book, in particular, notes that Red Circle was only used for the pulps, and even then only "halfheartedly ... when someone would remember to put it on a cover." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the Grand Comics Database (GCDB) and look up the Ultimate imprint/brand for Marvel there you will only see three comics listed there. We both know that there have been more 3 comics in the Ultimate line; heck there has been even more title than 3. So I don't consider the GCDB to be completely reliable. The Michigan State University's Comic Art Collection Reading Room Index does have a Red Circle Magazines listed as a "American comics publisher, a Timely-Marvel imprint" also listing a "Comic Capers. -- New York : Red Circle Magazines, 1944-1946. -- col. ill. ; 26 cm. -- Published no. 1 (Fall 1944)..." Timely only selected as the representative name for Goodman's publishing group as a historian that began to research Marvel's history latched onto it given it being the publisher of Marvel Comics #1 not knowing that Goodman published under a number of corporations. as they used Marvel Group in the Spring 1947, and Atlas Comics in 1944. Spshu (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As always, you are careful and meticulous and you make an extremely good point about the Ultimate imprint. GCD is correct, though, in saying Marvel Comics #1 was published by Timely Publications; four or five years ago I had the rare privilege of holding a copy of the November printing in my hands and reading the indicia, which gave "Timely Publications".

Since Timely Comics is the common name, and since the exact nature of Red Circle Comics seems uncertain and goes unmentioned in even those three definitive books about Marvel history, what do you think about my putting the Red Circle information, including your new information above, into a footnote explaining all this? Unlike "Timely Publications," which is the common name for the pulp/comics/magazine company, and "Timely Comics", which is the logo brand and that division's common name, "Red Circle Comics/Magazines" seems an imprint or a paper corporation and not an alternate or original name for the comics line. All your information will still be there. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't disagree with the Marvel Comics #1, I in fact pointed out that is why the comic book historian latched onto the name "Timely". ("Timely only selected as the representative name for Goodman's publishing group as a historian that began to research Marvel's history latched onto it given it being the publisher of Marvel Comics #1 not knowing that Goodman published under a number of corporations.") Look at some covers found on some of the Timely sites, Goodman didn't put any imprint/brand on some of the covers at all. Calling "Red Circle Comics" would seem logical with the common name for Goodman's pulp and other publishing ventures (Red Circle Books/Lion Books) being called Red Circle by historian in a similar situation to selecting Timely as neither were used consistantly by Goodman. I did remove the Marvel section from the Red Circle Comics article do to it being a nonindependent source referenced and the creation of the Red Circle (publishing) article and insertion of "Red Circle Comics" as a alternative name in the Timely Comics article. But back to your suggestion to place it in a foot note go ahead. Spshu (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you one better: Given the complexity of the issue, what do you think about my writing this all up as a paragraph within the article itself, at the end of the "Creation" section? The more I look at this, the more complex and interesting this new information that you've uncovered is. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And wow! Pulpinfo.org that you found is a great site. Finally, someone's untangled the paper-company labyrinth of Goodman's pulps. And it looks like we've fruitfully collaborated, in a back-door way, on Red Circle &mdash: I found and wrote up a lot of the Goodman material you used! See? I knew we'd work well together! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new paragraph within the Timely Comics article, containing your Jess Nevins, Richard Paul Hall and Michigan State University findings, as well as official Marvel historian Les Daniels' description of Red Circle. I left out Bellman since most of that page was a mirror the Timely Wikipedia article, and unusable as a cite. But as you'll see, that paragraph is virtually all your own information. Let me know what you think. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also put your information at Red Circle (publishing) and added the Red Circle logo in the infobox. I'm dying to get your opinion on these changes. By the way, that great PulpInfo.org site was able to fill in a cite-request tag at Martin Goodman (publisher). Do you think that the pulps listed on his page should also appear at Red Circle (publishing)? They'd be easy enough to copy over. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would move the list of pulps over to the Red Circle (publishing) article. I just have not done it as I would want to verify that the list is supportable by the source. I try not to introduce unsourced material into articles I start up. I have verified the list and moved it to Red Circle. Spshu (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff! I did see the list of his sources at his own talk page; I should probably encourage him to put them up on his Red Circle website. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of that, what do you think of moving the Martin Goodman quotes section, which is all about Magazine Management, into the Magazine Management article, which I don't believe existed when they were added to the Goodman article? Since "Quotes" sections have also since been deprecated, they should probably be integrated into the article prose. I've done that kind of integrating before, so it's pretty simple for me. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work at Cadence Industries. I'm very proud of the way we collaborated, and, again, I admire the depth of your research abilities and your knowledge of corporate structure. Those are valuable elements needed at WikiProject Comics. I think I brought writing ability and a fresh eye, and the work we did together helped create a very solid article. I would be happy to work with you anytime, though obviously my range of interest and expertise is primarily in comics-related articles. I do know this: The last time I happened by Nabisco, that corporate article needed a hell of a lot of work. I'm sure you could rescue it.

We've still got a little work to do with Martin Goodman. Let's not lose touch after that. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	In sincere appreciation of all your hard work editing and your detailed knowledge of corporate structure, both helping to make WikiProject Comics even better -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Comics

You might want to take a look at another editor's change to the Marvel Comic infobox. I think you'd know the infobox protocol of "Owner" vs. "Parent" better than I. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Spshu! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Harry Flynn

Hello. I was just wondering if you explain your reasoning for converting Harry Flynn into a disambiguation page? It seems to have resulted in the creation of a large number of disambiguation links most of which are intended to point to the Bishop. In my mind he appears to be the primary topic. As far as I can see "Harry Flynn" the publisher does not appear to be linked to any other articles. Perhaps you could point out that articles in which this subject is mentioned? Thanks, France3470 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the link at Marvel Comics so I'll add it on the dab. Looks like this resolves everything. Sorry to have cluttered up your talk page. In future though it would really help us disambiguators if you could add in the necessary blue links when you create new dabs, otherwise the page will get tagged for cleanup and likely get lost for a few months in the backlog. Best, France3470 (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "'Green Oak, Michigan"

A page you created, 'Green Oak, Michigan, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 15:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Disney

Hi. I see you tried to trim this {navbox}. It didn't stick, as some want several thousand links in there. Perhaps you'd care to comment at Template talk:Disney#Purpose of a navbox. And see WP:HLIST and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-21/Technology report for info on current methods of implementing navboxes. Alarbus (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jeff Wright (politician)

On 14 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jeff Wright (politician), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jeff Wright, a county drain commissioner in Michigan, has also served as an FBI informant? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jeff Wright (politician).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marvel Comics films

At this point you are being disruptive. You can take it to the talk page or to WP:FILMS if you like, but stop trying to edit war to get your way.

- J Greb (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you are being disruptive and are causing the edit war to get your way. See Wikipedia:Overlink crisis as why not to have too much lapping navboxes (look for the "Morocco had gained 12 separate navboxes". Animated films are covered in another navbox and were link (as is Marvel Animation directly) to in the Marvel Films see also section in my edit. The animate film link takes them to Marvel Animation Section: Animated Marvel Features which has a list of the animated films and the article has the Marvel animated production navbox. Additional there will most likely more Marvel live action films and animated films. If you set such an overlap standard then "overlink crisis" will return. Thus my use of redunate as a reason to remove them. --Spshu (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilove!!!!

I realize I was wrong on reverting you first before discussing. Will you please accept my humble apology by having a cookie. BTW I hope you at least see some of my point on what I was concerned about and didn't take it the wrong way like J Greb did.

Cookies!

Jhenderson777 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, 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:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Pastoral Provision Redirect

Spshu, over at Talk:Anglican Use there is a proposal to revert the redirect to Anglican Use of the Pastoral Provision article. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major and mini-major film studios

I think you should understand more about how the studios work and ownership by conglomerates.

Look at this old link I found before CBS Films was re-established:

http://www.filmbug.com/studios/

And second, look at the article Major film studio because CBS Films is indeed a mini-major studio among other mini-majors that are listed. Plus, RKO Pictures is still alive and making films. http://www.rko.com

Let me know if you have anymore questions King Shadeed 13:17, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Um, I found that source and is one that I use on the Major film studio article for Mini-majors section. So please actually read the filmbug link. As far as looking at the article to prove the article? Sorry that isn't how it works around here. Spshu (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TB

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

Digital subchannels

July 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to WVIR-DT3, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC) 21:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this as clear as I can. A user, alot like you, was blocked yesterday for "edit warring, WP:OWN issues and WP:BATTLE" and "doing vs. seeking consensus". That is going to be you as you have tried to get consensus, you were turned down, you come back 2 months later with this fun little page and more edit-warring. If you would like to be blocked as well, continue down the same path, otherwise, move onto something new. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Regarding your decision to label digital subchannels (many of which I created out of recognition of their increasing occurrence) as not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, I assure you that they do. Obviously, there may be a digital subchannel that is associated with a specialty "diginet" such as This TV and Me-TV that does not originate any local programming. However, I assume those added with new affiliation agreements with a big four television network (in markets lacking a major network affiliate) should be considered as important as a primary digital network station. While I will not resort to edit warring with the physical removal of the labels, I nicely urge you to consult an article's talk page first (or feel free to start one) on those pages that you would like to consider making changes (i.e. fundamental reasons why a page should or should not be created and basic article formatting). Personally, I think article talk pages are underutilized and editors simply choose to "revert now and ask questions later". I, for one, would gladly begin to practice what I preach here. Strafidlo (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of the digital subchannel is no more than a duplicate of the station article with affiliate network and the digital subchannel changed. As for the big four or minor tv nets affiliation on digital subchannels, it is probable notable enough to make in the TV stations article with a nonprimary source. It has been discussed repeatly at TVS (see below). Second, do you have two articles for a car dealer that adds a new auto franchise? Or is there an article for grocery store chains for every product or product group that they sell? Or does a station that had during the analog era a secondary affiliations have a second article on the secondary affiliation? No to both. The TV station just has more ways to divide up channel from just a time schedule (scheduling a secondary affiliation late at night or on weekends) to multiplexing the digital channel into subchannels and displaying the secondary affiliation on a subchannel. Similar to a car dealership adding another or more lot space then carving them up into areas for the new brand. Given that most of the articles are not sources under the notability and verifiable rules, I can redirect with out any notice as is.

- On top of notability's WP:BROADCAST, here are various discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations that indicate that they should be in the stations' article not general in their own article:
  - Digital_TV_information
- UPN14
- Listing_of_DT_channels_in_market_boxes - in effect indicates that subchannels are a part of the TV Station and are not another TV Station
- Separate articles for digital subchannels? - again subchannels are not generally suppose to have their own article
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#Articles_on_subchannels - another subchannels are not generally suppose to have their own article
  - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#WENY-DT3 WENY-DT3 - 3 to 1 vote against subchannels receiving their own article
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#Subchannels Subchannels - ignore earlier discussion, it comes up again. 3 to 2 against them having articles.
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations/Archive_9#Digital_Subchannels Digital Subchannels Spshu (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only Warning

I have went through and rollbacked all of the blanketing of articles with GNG templates, near-vandalism deletion of information on pages and merging, all without consensus. I am tired of your running roughshod around the rules, so if you retemplate any of the subchannel pages, you will be blocked. If you mass delete tons of information from an article, you will be blocked. If you merge articles without discussion, you will be blocked. If you do anything without reading the rules first and getting consensus, you will be blocked. If you can do any of those things, then...you guessed it...you will be blocked. Between you and DreamMcQueen, your going around the rules to serve your own agendas is going to stop.

Straighten up, fly right, or...well, be blocked. Consider this your only warning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on the notability of subchannels with unique programming to show there is consensus for them, you may comment here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a chance, you edit warred yet again. You have been taken to ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NBC California Nonstop 3RR

Your recent editing history at NBC California Nonstop shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You are also near 3RR on numerous other articles. Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 00:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the above a blanket warning for all pages you are currently engaged in edit-wars on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subchannels

We are not doing this again, you didn't get consensus on three seperate talk pages now, you don't have consensus, you have moved into disruptive editing and a slow-moving content dispute where only you are disputing the content. Stop now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to yourself and stop now. You have been told repeatly that you are misinterpreting the essay. No administrator took on the ANI. Stop threating me. Spshu (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about you listen to yourself. You continue to bring this back up after letting is rightly die off, after another "no consensus" vote, after a month or so. You have gotten "no consensus" votes at Talk:WNEM-DT2, ANI, and the thread at WP:TVS just died out with you as the final edit. Only you are continously bringing this up, beating the dead horse. It was dead after the vote at Talk:WNEM-DT2, it was really dead when the TVS thread died the first time around, it was decomposing after the ANI thread and when the TVS thread died the second time around, the horse was just bones. Bury the horse and move on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and stalking my edits...not going to get you any brownie points. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I end up having to beating the dead horse because fail to understand that this issue has been decided repeatly against your position and your continuing to edit war over the issue. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, could you walk into your bathroom and find a mirror....cause you just discribed yourself. Dude, you fail to understand that when you don't have consensus, you don't continue editing the way you are. You don't have it. You never have. So, you need to stop or you are going to be blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You think cause it is removed and "out of sight, out of mind" that it changes anything? It doesn't, you still don't have consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

←There you go, since you just want to try to rub it in my nose so bad. Just because you project your own faults on me. Instead it will remain as a monument of you poor boorish behavior. Spshu (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Universe

Why did you change Marvel Universe back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milomilk (talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As in the edit summary, WP's notability requirement was not met, ie. 2 source articles by 3rd party news source pimarily about the Marvel Universe TV block. One of your sources is about the comic title Hulk becoming Hulk and Agents of SMASH, thus is not even primarily about the animated series of the same name. Nor was the other article about the Marvel U TV block on Disney XD. Avengers Assemble and Hulk and Agents of SMASH are not even confirm to be on Disney XD much less as a part of the Marvel U TV block, while that is the common assumption it has not been reported as such. As wikipedians we must not assume and go by what the reliable source say. --Spshu (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted discussion

Why do you have deleted my message in your talk page? I saw the discussion. Even there is consensus, the name Italo-Albanian still remains incorrect. --Prodebugger (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved to your talk page were the discussion began instead of spliting the discussion thread. Second, stating it is incorrect doesn't make it correct. --Spshu (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, without any source, it still remains a personal statement. I will look for official sources. --Prodebugger (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Posts

~~Do not, for ANY circumstances, remove any post that was not by you as you have done here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Hey, that was my fault, not Spshu's. See my subsequent edit summary:[3]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to come here and apologize for the above warning, but you beat me. So....to Spshu, my apologizes on the goof up and I am striking the above warning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't except your apology as it was to reverse your editing of my post there. Spshu (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing you mean "accept" and that's your choice, no skin off my back. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Owned Television Stations

I noticed the NBC Owned Television Stations article you been working on at User:Spshu/Sandbox3. It looks good and has more than enough references to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I think it's about time to move it to the NBC Owned Television Stations page. Powergate92Talk 02:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I though it was time too similar to my attempt to retag digital subchannels for being unnotable, but trigered Neutralhomer's edit warring opposition again. King Shadeed seems to be a obstructionist just like Neutralhomer, as I have problems with him on Template:Film Studio and Major film studio on top of the NBCUniversal Television Group article. The NBCU TV Group seems to be a temporary grouping just for executive responsibility based on current NBCU corporate executives responsibility indicates that the TV Group doesn't seem to exist any more. So the TV Group article might be correctly: NBC Broadcasting, NBC Owned Television Stations, NBC Entertainment, or less likely NBCUniversal News Group or NBC Sports Group as they all have parts of NBCU TV Group. Shadeed seems to be stuck in 2004. If you still think so, I will go ahead and move it. --Spshu (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't both you and Powergate92 do a search on this page, Spshu. NBCUniversal Television Group still exists as the name is used on two executives. Every major company have their own television group: Sony, Disney-ABC, Warner Bros., etc. http://www.nbcumv.com/mediavillage/networks/nbcentertainment/executives King Shadeed 1:35, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Those are marketing titles for cross-units use as the Executive Vice President, NBCUniversal Television Group Publicity covers communications for NBC Entertainment, NBCUniversal Television Studio, NBCUniversal Television Distribution and NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment. The two titles are marketing titles not unit head titles. That supports my point these were title only in existance to indicate that they oversee something for more then a single unit. Just because other major company has their own TV Group doesn't mean that NBC has or must retain that structure. --Spshu (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do so retain that structure. The NBCUniversal Television Group consists of: Universal Television, NBCUniversal Television Distribution, Universal Cable Productions, Comcast Entertainment Studios, NBCUniversal International Television (and its international owned companies), etc., and three in-name-only divisions: Universal Talk Television, NBC Studios, and Universal Network Television. So don't say that the group ceased to exist if they have all of those companies. Furthermore, if the name didn't exist anymore, then why is it mentioned under two executives?? King Shadeed 23:45, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Spshu: Per what I said above, I think it's time to be bold and move it to the article namespace. Powergate92Talk 03:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King Shadeed: I didn't say NBCUniversal Television Group doesn't still exists. In fact, I actually said at Talk:NBCUniversal Television Group#NBC Nonstop "a page for NBCUniversal Television Group I found from BusinessWeek says under "Company Overview:" "NBC Universal Television Group operates as a television production and distribution company.""[4] It's just NBC Owned Television Stations is not part of NBCUniversal Television Group. Powergate92Talk 03:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said that NBCUniversal TV Group doesn't exist any more and may have been an temporary alignment of business units based on what NBCU's CEO felt needed greater coordination and had an executive up to the task of managing them. BusinessWeek.com profile for the NBCU TV Group still lists Zucker as CEO of the Group as we all know he became CEO of NBCU. It looks from that page itself that the NBCU TV Group was split up into atleast NBC Broadcasting and NBC Entertainment with the article about "NBC Universal TV Entertainment Chairman Jeff Gaspin to Leave", not to mention all the other realignments after the Comcast taking over control bring realignment including NBC Sports Group and NBC News Group.

King Shadeed: as I pointed out that one of the executive have cross unit responsibilities thus the term "NBU TV Group" is a short hand for all the units under the marketing position which includes NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment. The Chief Marketing Officer, NBCU TV Group position webpage also indicates the existance of the NBC Agency, which I can infer is a marketing support unit of NBC, thus the marketing positions don't necessarily belong to the units given in their title -- it is just their assignment. And you are wrong on Universal Cable Productions, the article source for that unit indicates that it reports to the NBCU Cable Entertainment & Studio head. Also check out the NBC News Group executive as that shows the Peacock Productions executives as part of that Group. --Spshu (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then where is your evidence, Spshu saying it doesn't exist anymore? King Shadeed 2:55, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

←Where is your evidence that it still exists, King Shadeed? Your own "proof" is to latch on to two marketing executive titles and ignore the presents of two chairs for NBC Entertainment and NBC Broadcasting and that the page is for NBC ENTERTAINMENT not NBCU TV Group. Neither person's job description in their bio indicates that they jointly run NBCU TV Group but that they report directly to NBCU's CEO.Spshu (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A television group is a television group. And I asked you first where is your evidence saying it doesn't exist anymore. Both you and Powergate92 both speculate saying that it doesn't exist anymore. The name wouldn't exist anymore if two executives under NBC's OWN sites said so. So much for your skeptics. Nice try Spshu and Powergate92. King Shadeed 20:53, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Again I didn't say it doesn't exist anymore. Anyway I just did a Google search and found a press release from NBCUniversal dated August 29, 2012 that says "NBCUniversal Television Consumer Products Group manages all global ancillary television business endeavors for the NBCUniversal Television Group, including third-party home entertainment distribution, consumer products, musical soundtracks, special markets projects and the NBCUniversal Online Store."[5] So yes, as of August it still exist. Powergate92Talk 05:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, King Shadeed, your own "evidence" doesn't support your position, marketing executives are not line executives but support executives thus doesn't prove that such a unit exits. As the TV Group could just be a short hand for the combination of units that they have responsibility for in that support position within the Marketing/Publicity department and that may be the case of the NBCU TV Consumer Products Group press release as it may not have been change along with the recent realignment yet (or they feel no need to). So, the onus is on you, not me. Just repeating your position of other media conglomerates have them there for NBCU must have them is false. Powergate92, I believe that King Shadeed is refering to the fact that you don't consider the NBC O&O Stations as a part of NBCU TV Group that you have concluded that the NBCU TV Group doesn't exist because most media conglomerates' TV Groups contain their O&O Stations. He seems to be locked into a preset notion of a "TV Group" amongst other ideas and will not change his mind. For example, dispite the article source indicating that Universal Cable Production (UCP) was spun out of Universal TV and place in the NBCU Cable Entertainment and Studio unit group, UCP is still listed as a division of NBCU TV Group. Spshu (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected for the final time, NBCUniversal Television Group still exists. You didn't provide any evidence stating it doesn't exist anymore, but I did since it's still ongoing.

There's no point on moving the page to NBC Entertainment since that's a different division. This discussion is over. King Shadeed 20:26, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Zucker and Marks are marketing personal and are not line executive, which doesn't prove the existance of NBCU TV Group as pointed out. John Miller's full title is "Chief Marketing Officer, NBC Universal Television Group, NBCUniversal" shows that it a NBCUniversal title indicating his responsibility not a NBCU TV Group title. With Rebecca Marks, we have contridictory bios' listed title Executive Vice President, Publicity, NBC Entertainment at NBCUni.com and Executive Vice President, NBCUniversal Television Group Publicity at NBCU Media Village. No you cannot cherry pick your sources.

Two, All the GE's page on Jeff Zucker proves is that Zucker was in charge of NBCU TV Group from ("had served") December 2005 to February 2007 when appointed CEO of NBCUniversal (and is not the currently CEO of NBCU, Stephen B. Burke is. If still exists why is it so hard for you to find a source for who is the line (not marketing) executive(s) currently in charge of the NBCU TV Group? Spshu (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you still fail to read on who is in charge. Nothing has changed according to NBCUniversal's website. The subject is closed. King Shadeed 23:32, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

←The SUBJECT IS NOT CLOSED nor can you declare it closed. As my last post showed I did "read on who is in charge". Marketing is a support function in most companies and thus not in charge. You continue to fail to read and conprend my posts. --Spshu (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Studios

Your recent editing history at Marvel Studios shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring report at User:Spshu reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Warned) has been closed with a warning to you. If you engage in any continued reverting that is not supported by consensus you may be blocked. An RfC is now open on the talk page and you should try to persuade the other parties there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Spshu. You have new messages at VernoWhitney's talk page.
Message added 17:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

VernoWhitney (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterdog

Hi, the current article isn't anything like the previous article (which was mostly an ad) and does attest notability with references that are dated after the previous deletion discussion. If someone wants to list it for deletion again, I can't stop it, but as it stands, it's fine by me. --Bobet 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Station Venture Operations

REMEMBER, KNSD is an NBC O&O since NBC holds a majority stake. O&Os and affiliates are different. If you need proof, please refer to the Form-10K I have used as a reference. Thanks. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 00:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Reminder" is not a good name for a section, please use the actual topic under discussion. As you are not reminding of any thing as WP works on sources not one's memory. Second the Form-10K is a primary source although is review by the Government, so is not a preferred source. You also make it hard to verify your source as you did not specify the page. Third, there is a "sub"-article about Station Venture Operations, LP that is wiki-linked, so as to explain the ownership better instead of duplicating the information in all three articles, this is the advantage of a wikipedia. Spshu (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at KNSD, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 22:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you bother to read, the information and reason was listed above in the "Reminder" section that was renamed to Station Venture Operations. Spshu (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm settling this at WP:AN3. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234)

22:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 User:Spshu reported by User:Fairlyoddparents1234. Thank you.

Edit warring on KNSD

Your recent editing history at KNSD shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Please also note that this unacceptable behaviour has already been reported to WP:ANI (link here). So if you would like to challenge this claim, you may go there and post your views. Thank you.

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the result of this 3RR case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive200#User:Spshu reported by User:Fairlyoddparents1234 (Result: Both warned). If you continue to revert the article before a consensus is reached you may be blocked. This is your third time at WP:AN3 since July 1 which is not a good omen. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KXAS-TV

You left a lot of serious errors at KXAS-TV; did you forget to use show preview? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 22:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at NBC part-O&Os

Do you like what I did to KXAS-TV and KNSD? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topps Comics

Hi, Spshu. Hope you're well; haven't heard from you in a while. I'm curious about the notability tag you placed at Topps Comics. As I wrote on the talk page, it was a well-established company that produced a large number of high-profile products by major comics creators and featuring many major licensed properties. I'd urge you to place a rationale on the talk page, since without it, there's no way to address any specific concerns. Honestly, on the face of it, Im perplexed as to why the tag is there, and without a rationale people can respond to, it doesn't really stand on its own. Hoping to hear from you. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MLG Productions

I see that you are about to remove the MLG Productions article. I just wanted to have a solo article about it. TheWikiMan95 Mario Saenz 16:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sufficent reason. You must defend the article on its talk page. --Spshu (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in 2004, Lionsgate and Marvel made a deal in which they would produce eight films together, therefore forming MLG Productions. They just finished their deal, so the company is now defunct. TheWikiMan95 Mario Saenz 16:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just redirected the MLG Productions article to Marvel Animation#Marvel Animated Features if that makes you happy. TheWikiMan95 (talk) Mario Saenz 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Muppets

You've recently been adding the Star Wars character Yoda to The Muppets template. I want to clarify why your edits are incorrect and have been undone.

1. The template is used for The Muppets intellectual property, which is devoted to The Muppet Show characters and properties owned by Disney. In other words, the article is used to serve as centralized location for articles related only to that particular franchise.

2. The subject of Yoda.

a. Yoda was designed by Stuart Freeborn at Elstree Studios in conjunction with George Lucas' ILM studio during the production of The Empire Strikes Back.

b. For the character's execution, Lucas consulted Jim Henson, a natural choice, considering his foray in puppetry. Henson, instead suggested one of his own puppeteers, Frank Oz, for the job. The fact that Henson was consulted and that Oz was a simultaneous performer for both The Muppets and the character of Yoda was coincidental and exists as the only connection between Yoda and The Muppets.

c. The media at the time, (and occasionally still do, mostly as tongue-in-cheek) refer to the character informally as a "Muppet" due to Oz's involvement.

d. Yoda's "status" is NOT affected by Disney's recent Lucasfilm acquisition. Much like Princess Leia isn't becoming a Disney Princess.

3. "The Muppets", "the Muppets" and "creatures"

a. The characters designed by Henson's Muppet Workshop (that is; The Muppet Show, Sesame Street and Fraggle Rock) were all considered "Muppets" at the time of their creation, due to their similarities in design, anatomy, construction and execution. However, the characters developed for The Muppet Show are referred to as "The Muppets" and still are, now that their owner Disney, owns the trademark for the term "Muppet". As a result, the Sesame Street characters and Fraggles (owned separately by Sesame Workshop and The Jim Henson Company, respectively), lost the right to use the term, unless given permission to by Disney.

b. Characters designed by Henson's other workshop facility; Jim Henson's Creature Shop, are referred to as "creatures" and operate differently from their Muppet counterparts.

I hope this message clarifies the inconsistencies that were evident in your edits. Thank you. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1. The Muppet template wasn't limit itself to the "The Muppet Show" franchises. This is appearently your own view of it.[reply]
2a. You give no such source for this and there isn't one in the Yoda article for Freeborn's creating Yoda.
2b. Henson's Company as Oz was assign to Yoda in the creation of Yoda.
2c. They called it a muppet do to Henson's involvement in its creation that has been the designation for Henson's puppets. It is your personal opinion about it being tongue in cheek. 2d. Of course, Yoda status doesn't change, it is a muppet in common usage. But with the Lucasfilm purchase it can be consider a "Muppet".
3. This all (below) came out when Big Bird was brought up in the 2012 Presidential Campaign. 3a. No Disney refers to the as Disney's The Muppets. Sesame Workshop purhased the right to call their muppets Muppets from EM TV and isn't subject to Disney; the trademark was split.
3b. Incorrect, muppets are created by Jim Henson's Creature Shop as that is where Sesame Workshop gets their Muppets as they have no in house creation facilities. Spshu (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. You state that the template is not designated for just The Muppet Show characters. Why don't you take the time to examine it again? You'll see that it lists characters that are only from The Muppet Show. Also, films and television specials that include those characters are only included. It was agreed upon on the template's talk page without any disagreements or opposing conflicts. Sesame Street has its own templates here and here. Any other Henson properties, such as Fraggle Rock are listed here.

2a. Excuse me for not providing a source in proving that Stuart Freeborn was the designer for Yoda. I believed that was common knowledge due to it being heavily documented in Star Wars documentaries. He based Yoda's facial design on his own likeness and Albert Einstein. Here's one, another one, a video interview and a a BBC audio documentary. If none of those suits you well, then the following is an excerpt from an interview with Frank Oz himself stating that Jim Henson did NOT make him.

"From then on, I was the one who kind of put all the elements of Yoda together, and although Jim didn't make Yoda, George and he had an understanding that they would exchange technology information. George would give to Jim and Jim would give some of his people to George to help. Wendy Froud helped out a little bit with the character and two other people from Jim's company worked the cables for me."

Now, please provide your citations proving all of this otherwise.

2b. It's not clear what you're attempting to state there.

2c. I've already made light of this in 2a, but I'll reiterate. They called it a Muppet because a Muppet puppeteer was performing him. It's that simple. Besides his notoriety in puppetry, Lucas consulted Jim Henson due to the close proximity of Henson's workshop to the location where the majority of The Empire Strikes Back was being produced; London. Henson suggested Oz and producer Gary Kurtz was dispatched to inform Oz of Yoda. The Yoda puppet did have similar operative designs to Muppets; they both used rods, both are operated hand-wise and both are operated with assistance from video cameras for visual reference. Besides consultation, Jim Henson did not have a direct involvement with Yoda's characterization, design or literal construction. It was Stuart Freeborn who designed him, Oz operated him, whereas Lucas and Oz created his characterization, such as his unique syntax. For added perspective, here's a New York Times article that was written after Henson's death. It describes Henson's career and the characters he created throughout his lifetime. Never does it state or even mention Yoda. If Yoda was created by Henson, as you allege, wouldn't you think that such a well-known character as Yoda would be mentioned by major print media company in an article published after his death?

3 and below. One of the stipulations that Disney permitted was the continued use of the word Muppet by Sesame Workshop. Sesame Workshop aren't freely allowed to use the word whenever they can; they use it where they're allowed. That was what I meant when I wrote; "unless given permission to by Disney." Sesame Workshop uses the term via a licence. Providing me with a link to their general website proves nothing on the trademark.

The Sesame Street Muppets are still made by The Jim Henson Company's Puppet Workshop. Disney's Muppets, however, are made by the unaffiliated and independent Puppet Heap, as evidenced in their "About" section of their website.

There exists a definitive line between Muppets and Creatures as stated by Jim Henson himself in this transcript of a telephone interview he did. Yoda is neither, but for the sake of argument, let's say Yoda was designed by Henson. Thus, according to Henson's own words, his nature would categorize as a "creature and not a "Muppet". Also, if the Muppets and creatures are all the same, then by your logic, we should consider the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as Muppets, should we not? Or how about Babe? The animals from Dr. Dolittle?

Look, I'm not trying to seek out a conflict or have this lead to anything larger than it already is, but the fact of the matter is; including Yoda in The Muppets template is simply incorrect and that's what I came here to rationally speak about. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Included in the template is Bear in the Blue House, Fraggle Rock show, The Land of Gorch, etc. none of which are Muppet Show Muppets. Say again how can you say it is just about The Muppet Show?

2a. It was common knowledge that Henson's company was involved not this other individual. And no it was never "heavily documented in Star Wars documentaries" as I try to watch them. We would be having this argument if it was. There for, a source would have been clearly needed. Plus, Hensen surely was not making all the Muppets himself, who do you think is doing now at the Creature Shop for Sesame Workshop's Sesame Street? Henson is 6 feet under. It does not say who Oz and Stuart Freeborn worked for as others have contracted Lucasfilms' ILM for special effects. I asssume from all the Star Wars documentaries that Lucas gave the over all design with Hensen Production physical built him.

2b. Duh, Jim Henson doesn't handle all Muppets all the time or who in the world are the muppeters. Lucasfilms contract with Henson's company to provide someone as Oz worked there.

2c. Stating your opinion again doesn't make it so. It just looks like your trying to be an ass. Many major papers make mistakes, they may have seen it trival as primary Oz was involved on Henson's company's behalf. What no mention of Land of Gorch or Kermit's nephew, Scooter, Animal or other of a number of Muppets as its suppose to list "the characters he created throughout his lifetime".

3. That sipulation is from the EM.TV deal not something that Disney grants or was forced to grant. The EM.TV deal with Sesame Workshop predates the sale of the Henson Company back to the Henson family and the sale of the Muppet Show Muppets & BiBH to Disney. If it was allow with Disney premission only then the Sesame Street website would have to indicate that "Muppets is a trademark of Disney used with premission." or some similar language. Otherwise it could become deluted or genericized like xerox or klennex.

"The Sesame Street Muppets are still made by The Jim Henson Company's Puppet Workshop." That is what I basically said to counter "b. Characters designed by Henson's other workshop facility; Jim Henson's Creature Shop, are referred to as "creatures" and operate differently from their Muppet counterparts." Don't know why you brough up Puppet Head or repeating what I say to debunk you except to torpedo your argument.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Babe and Dr. Dolittle don't use puppets.

"Look, I'm not trying to seek out a conflict or have this lead to anything larger than it already is, but the fact of the matter is; including Yoda in The Muppets template is simply incorrect." No, Yoda's inclusion in the "Muppet" template is not "simply incorrect". And no you did not come here to "rationally speak about." since you did not and have even contradicted your orginal statements. Spshu (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I say anything regarding this topic I want to, as politely as I can make it seem, address something to you: Please write more legibly and clearly. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it's difficult for me to understand and decipher what you are trying to say when your writing is filled with spelling and punctuation errors. Often times, you misspell specific names or write in fragmented sentences that make it seem that you're not firmly behind what you're arguing. It's not a peeve of mine, or an insult, it's just a suggestion to ease the difficulties in reading your writing.

Aside from that:

That one article I provided, that records Frank Oz's own words should be the basis for disproving your thoughts on Yoda. It cannot get more basic than asking the performer himself about his own character.
Everything you have just stated in counter me is unverified and generalized. I have provided clear and adequate references concerning the details I have brought up but you have yet to show anything disproving me. Show me a source that explicitly says "it is common knowledge that Henson's company was involved not this other individual". Those are YOUR words and since you've told me that my opinion "doesn't make it say so", then please find a source that proves your words aren't your opinion. If not, then your conjecture is moot.
Find any documentary about the production of The Empire Strikes Back that does not cover Yoda. Here's a time coded link to a very-well known documentary produced by Lucasfilm, called Empire of Dreams. In that allotted portion, the narrator distinctly says: "Designed by Stuart Freeborn, and operated by Muppeteer Frank Oz". I don't know how else to prove you that verified fact.
The Bear in the Big Blue House characters remained in the template because according to the consensus on the talk page all productions owned by Disney's The Muppets Studio were to be kept. The Land of Gorch segments are probably there due to lack of voice. There hasn't been a discussion regarding the inclusion of the Saturday Night Live sketches. So they were kept. If you wish to have it removed, voice it on the talk page.
Puppet Heap Workshop is a third-party company that builds the Muppets for Disney. They are given credit in the 2011 film's credits and for the construction of Walter. According to their website, they also claim to have Sesame Workshop as a client. If that's true, then Sesame Workshop must not be working with The Jim Henson Company anymore. Now, I can't say more on that, since it's original research, so I'll leave that point alone.
"That is what I basically said to counter b." You do realize that in an argument, people can agree with the person they're arguing with, correct? I was partially in agreement with you on that one point.
"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Babe and Dr. Dolittle don't use puppets." Jim Henson's Creature Shop was responsible for the special effects in those films. You know, the same division that you purport is the same as the Muppet workshop? The titular puppet turtles for instance were built by that company. They weren't real or CGI, they were puppets articulated by human performers inside and outside the suits.

Before you respond, analyze and prove your claim that "Yoda is a Muppet created by Jim Henson" with verified, reputable sources. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is that you don't even know what your arguments are. Then when I responsed against them you have no clue. You have not been polite at all.

I have general logic to disprove your points and you can not seem to follow. Just because Oz is told to handle Yoda instead of Henson doesn't mean Henson Associates isn't involved as you quoted: "George would give to Jim and Jim would give some of his people to George to help." Clearly Henson's Company was a contractor of sorts. I don't know how you figure that only Jim Henson build and run Muppets are Muppets. So what no new muppets can be made since Henson died. That Oz article just indicated that he was introduced to the character. You seem to have drawn your own conclusions thus do not read the article objectively. My objections are that you have not provided "clear and adequate references". Your own Oz article does not clearly definitely declares that Henson Company had nothing to do with Yoda. The Oz article could mean that Henson turned down Lucas request to run Yoda personally and assigned Oz.

Bear in the Big Blue House and The Land of Gorch, etc. was brought up to counter your position that the template is only for Muppet Show's Muppets. I don't mind them being there.

Empire of Dreams stating "Designed by Stuart Freeborn, and operated by Muppeteer Frank Oz" doesn't disprove that Henson Company was or was not involve in making Yoda.

Why do you keep on going on about Puppet Heap Workshop? Your original point was the Henson's Creature Shop doesn't make Muppets and I debunk that. Now you say we agreed!?!?!?

Just because Henson's Creature Shop makes Muppets/puppets doesn't mean that they don't any thing else. Just like Lucasfilms is more than just Star Wars (like Indiana Jones).

I did not claim "Yoda is a Muppet created by Jim Henson". You are the one that keeps on pushing that Henson MUST design and OPERATE Yoda to make it a Muppet. I claimed Yoda is a muppet general designed by Stuart Freeborn/Lucasfilms build by Jim Henson Company and run by a Henson muppeteer, Frank Oz. All back up by your sources.

I will not add Yoda back as he is not a Muppet Show Muppet or any misc. Muppets (The Land of Gorch, etc.).Spshu (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You never claimed Yoda was designed by Stuart Freeborn. Do you remember your words; "It was common knowledge that Henson's company was involved not this other individual", which was made to reciprocate my Stuart Freeborn point? To me, that's a polarized viewpoint.

But I assume none of it matters anymore. After all, since you have now agreed, not to add Yoda to the template, there's no reason to continue to butt heads. That was the main and only reason why I came to your talk page to discuss that. Thus, I sincerely thank you for your time and patience :) ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Muppet Performers

Hi! It looks like you've been challenging the notability of a number of high-profile Muppets performers. I am confused by this, as the two articles I spot-checked both are performers who at a glance easily fulfill the notability guidelines in WP:ENT. I've removed the flag, and put justification on the Talk page. Is there a reason you are doing this? -- Metahacker (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit) Looking at it further, you are also deleting content, including sourced content and references, from these pages with no explanation but "Nota." <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheryl_Wagner&diff=prev&oldid=528677096">example 1</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Nelson&diff=prev&oldid=528673556">example 2</a>. What reason do you have for this behavior? -- Metahacker (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability (Nota.) tag is explanatory. They might meet WP:ENT but is must be supported by major media sources per basic rule: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

Some material were removed do to BLP rules and the standing of the source. Because the IMDB is not consider WP reliable. Some of the source are affiliated with the person or are fan sources.

So what reason do you have for this behavior? Spshu (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template Discussion:The Muppets

A discussion is taking place concerning the changes that have been made at Template:The Muppets.

The article will be discussed at Template talk:The Muppets#Shortening names until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and policies and guidelines relevant to Wikipedia. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Walling

Just curious as to what you mean about Walling's religion and such not being confirmed. I posted a link. He attends a United Methodist church; he has offered that much. He doesn't have to officially announce his religion for us to list one at Wikipedia. I also think it's silly you removed his party affiliation. You are being too cute by a half and a bit overly careful/protective for whatever reason. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

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. Thank you. N-HH talk/edits 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last protecting admin advised you against making any further reverts until a consensus was reached. Yet you went ahead and restored your version on 3 January. Please join the discussion at the noticeboard and explain why you should not be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to document the outcome of this thread, Spshu was warned in January 2013 per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive204#User:Spshu reported by User:N-HH (Result: Warned) not to revert again at Duchy of Cornwall unless they received a talk page consensus for their change. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template Kraft Foods Group

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Template:Kraft Foods Group a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 08:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kraft Foods Group was created by copying its content, do to the split of Kraft Foods into Monelez International and Kraft Food Group. As there doesn't seem to be a "split template function", cut and paste is the only way to initial set up one of the templates. However, Monelez stayed at temp:Kraftprods with a new template:Kraft Food Group was created by some one else. While template:Kraft redirected to temp:Kraftprods, thus having two Kraft templates that don't reference Kraft but Monelez. I moved Monelez template to its own name. I have also fixed most of the redirecting going on which you now have reversed, also considered a non-no. This mess was not created by me. Spshu (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When splitting one template into two, a copy and paste has to be done, as there's no way to split otherwise. In such cases, attribution should be added to the talk pages of the old and new templates using {{split from}} and {{split to}}. The template was split correctly but attribution wasn't added; I've now fixed that. However, when completely moving a template, as appears to have been your intent, the template should not have been cut and pasted, as this doesn't move the talk page or the article history. The entire template needs to be used by following the procedures listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. As there is now an edit history, because of your cut and paste move, it will have to be done using {{RMassist}} using the process at WP:RM/TR. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kanbar Entertainment

Hi. I am the editor who created the Kanbar Entertainment article and am unsure why you removed the references that you did. According to Wikipedia policy (WP:Primary), primary sources are allowed as long as they are used as references for non-controversial facts, as was the case with the coryedwards.com reference and the interworks.com reference. The northsidesf.com reference was a professional magazine, so I can't see why that one would be a problem. The fullecirclestuff blog reference consisted of an interview with the film's director and I had verified its authenticity by including a page from the director's official website where he mentions and links to the interview. I first used this reference on the Hoodwinked! article and before including it there, asked whether it would be acceptable at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I was told that it would probably be okay, and since then Hoodwinked! has passed a Featured Article nomination without anyone opposing the reference.

I would also like to discuss the studio's notability. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:ORG), an organization or company is notable if it has received significant coverage by reliable and independent sources. I feel that the article from Variety about the lawsuit between Kanbar Entertainment and the Weinstein Company is at least one demonstration of "significant coverage". While the studio is not the primary subject of the other references, the guidelines simply state that multiple sources are needed if the subject is not discussed in great depth by any of them. Kanbar Entertainment is mentioned in at least three other independent reliable sources (The Northside magazine, the LA Times blogpost, which was written by a staff writer, and the Tulsa World newspaper). The guidelines don't specify how many sources are needed, and while these four certainly do not constitute a lot of coverage, I do feel that they provide enough coverage. --Jpcase (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and interview that have claims of some sort of status, landmark event, etc. are not "non-controversial facts". Ie. claim of "...which was one of the first computer-animated films to be entirely independently financed." by the blog interview which is a "landmark event".

You only have one article of significant coverage, the rest as you state only mention Kanbar in passing as the articles are about Hoodwinked! and are not about Kanbar. "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." Spshu (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I was using the blog to prove that the film was the first computer-animated film to ever be entirely independently financed, then yes, I think that you would be right. But in this case, all I am saying is that it was one of the first. The film's status as a landmark in independent animation has been noted by professional sources. This article from awn.com [6] says that the film may have been "the first independent animated film to be eligible for an oscar", while this article from the same website [7] says that the film made "animation history", doing what had previously been seen as "nearly impossible". I have also seen a professional journalist refer to an article from the Los Angeles Times, which called the film "the first noteworthy indie animated movie", though unfortunately the link that he provided is now dead. I chose to use the blog post instead of any of these, because "indie" is a rather vague term that could be used in a variety of contexts. For example, any Pixar films that were produced before the studio was bought by Disney could be considered "indie". The difference between Pixar and Hoodwinked! is that Disney contributed to the production costs of Pixar's films, while The Weinstein Company only handled distribution for Hoodwinked! The blog post is the only reference that clarifies this point. The other references were not wrong, they simply used the term "indie" in a more casual manner than would be proper for an encyclopedic article. If you feel that it would be better though, I could include the first awn.com reference along with the blog reference.

The references to Kanbar Entertainment in the Northside, LA Times, and Tulsa World articles seem more substantial to me than what the guidelines define as "trivial or incidental coverage". Examples that the guidelines give include meeting times, telephone numbers, and notices of facility openings or closings. The Northside reference is an in-depth article about the founder of the company. It details two of the films produced by that studio, the director and release date of one of those films, the box-office gross of the other film, and explains that a sequel to that film was in production at the time. The Tulsa World reference discusses how the directors of Hoodwinked connected with the studio, gives the film's budget, and explains that studio outsourced the animation to the Philippines and India. The LA Times reference gives quite a bit of info on the Hoodwinked! films and discusses the lawsuit between Kanbar Entertainment and The Weinstein Company. Yes, all of these discuss the studio within the context of its films, but in what other context could you discuss a film studio? By talking about a company's product, you are essentially talking about the company itself.

The guidelines seem to specify three different types of references. References that provide substantial coverage, references that do not provide substantial coverage (The guidelines do not say that these references cannot establish notability. Instead they say that multiple of them are needed to establish notability), and references that provide trivial coverage. The Northside, Tulsa World, and LA Times references may not provide "substantial coverage", but again, I certainly do not feel that they fall under "trivial coverage". So if they are in the second category, multiple of them are needed. No specific number is given, but I have provided three. I have also found a second source [8] which would fall under "significant coverage". It was posted on a blog, but that blog is run by a professional journalist, so it meets Wikipedia criteria for a reliable source. --Jpcase (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to have inherited notability from Hoodwinked! to Kanbar, which isn't allowed. Reviews are consider trivial. The Northside was about the Founder and a different company; Kanbar Enterainment only got a paragraph, not major coverage in the article (although I was incorrect in removing it as a source).Spshu (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC) (back signing)[reply]

The restrictions on inherited notability seem to apply more to people who are associated with the company or other companies that it owns/is owned by. So I agree, that Kanbar Entertainment is not notable just because it is owned by Maurice Kanbar who is notable. Or if The Walt Disney Company decided to buy Kanbar Entertainment, that would not make it notable. But I feel it is different when we are talking about a product of a company. Again, in what other context could one actually talk about a company other than its products? When one talks about a film studio, the main topic they would focus on would be its films. These three references could be more in depth sure, but again the guidelines do not say that references that are not in depth cannot be used to confer notability on a topic. The guidelines simply say that if a reference is not in depth, then multiple references are needed. I have provided three, which granted is not a very high number, but no minimum number is actually specified. More importantly though, I have provided two articles which give significant coverage. --Jpcase (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One can talk about a company in regards to a deal made, not just the product. For example, Kanbar making a multi-picture distribution deal, signed a production deal with a major or the converse a smaller production company signs with Kanbar, arranges major financing (for the films, lines of credits, new investors, etc.), acquired another company or made a newsworthy hire (hires away a heavy hitter at one of the majors or hires 100s of employees). Kanbar launches a new unit or acquires an unit in: TV, direct to video, online, video gaming, books, etc. Spshu (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Still though, I feel that when an article talks about a product, it is by extent talking about the company, as long as the company is mentioned in the article. The Northside, Tulsa World, and LA Times articles do provide more substantial coverage than what is defined in the guidelines as trivial and again, there are two articles that talk in-depth about the company. Kanbar Entertainment certainly is not one of the more notable topics on Wikipedia, but I still feel that it is notable in its own way and that it meets the notability criteria. --Jpcase (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found two more articles that provide significant coverage. The first [9] is from Animation Magazine and while I am unsure whether the second [10] would be considered a blog post, it was written by a published film critic. So do you feel that four articles providing significant coverage is enough? Also, do you have any objections to me re-inserting the interworks.com, coryedwards.com, and fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com references? Again, I am willing to include the awn.com article along with the fullecirclestuff interview if you feel that it is necessary. --Jpcase (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having taken the time to discuss this with me. I am going to go ahead and re-insert the references back into the article and remove the notability tag. If you have any objections, just let me know. :) --Jpcase (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Animation Studios

While it is apparent your good intention to give the Walt Disney Animation Studios article a superior quality, you must be careful when doing this. There was excessive use of "citation needed", in many cases absurd, as in the first paragraph of the 1950s section (now fixed).

It is also important to prevent unnecessary information in the article. A previous version of Circle 7 Animation history in the article made it seem that the studio had some connection with Walt Disney Animation Studios, while the only thing that connected the two studios was that the C7A employees moved to WDAS. This will be fixed.

Another issue was the removal of the introduction paragraph of the article. Although the second paragraph contained duplicate information, remotion of the third paragraph was completely wrong. There was no duplicated information in it and was consistent with what was proposed by the Article development and The perfect article official guides. This will also be fixed.

Anyway, keep doing the good job, but taking care to avoid excess, unnecessary information and things that are not really connected to WDAS.

Tim Week (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Tim Week[reply]

You are incorrect Cirle 7 as source in the article is connected to Walt Disney Animation Studios. "Disney animation chief David Stainton, to whom the sequels unit reports, declined to comment on its plans." Thus clearly showing that Circle 7 was a division of Disney Feature Animation.

Do not come here and lecture me. You have repeately remove source material from article. Spshu (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the news that you've linked is very clear that "the unit, which is being kept separate from Disney's main feature animation division". C7A was never any subdivision or studio of WDAS, the only thing that once linked the history of the studios was that the C7A have been closed and the employees moved to WDAS, nothing more.

And my complaint about the removal of content was only related to the fact that this occurred during the introductory paragraphs of the article, something vital for the presentation of the studio for a reader. I will make the restoration of vital parts, then disregard what I said before.

Tim Week (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Tim Week[reply]

NO, I quoted and linked it directly for you that C7A was a division of WDFA. C7A reported to WDFA's head thus was a division of WDFA. Spshu (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Nintendo characters

What criterion are you using to consider that articles with dozens of references from reliable sources do not meet the WP:GNG? Diego (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention"
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources"
- " 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact"

Basically, no mainstream news coverage (New Times, ABC News, etc.) or scholarly journal article directly about the characters. --Spshu (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the WP:GNG if you think that mainstream news or journal articles are required to provide notability (see footnote 2) -although the magazines referenced in the article *are* mainstream in the genre of video games. Neither direct coverage is required, and that is right there in the first notability criterion. Diego (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding me. Taylor & Francis Ltd is not "any one self-publishing a book". Diego (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just quoted it "Significant coverage" ("first notability criterion" as you called it), but yes, direct coverage is required and that is the first notabilty criterion, otherwise it is trival coverage. Mainstream media or expertise document is more precise perhaps. But the video magazines are not mainstream ie. general purpose news source. Other wise, there would be no such thing as WP:GNG. Yes, they might be reliable sources for those article that other wise meet notability requirements, otherwise, we would have articles on the level 4 zombie in some obscure first person shooter.

"Loguidice, Bill; Matt Barton (2009). Vintage Games: An Insider Look at the History of Grand Theft Auto, Super Mario, and the Most Influential Games of All Time. Focal Press." Don't see Taylor & Francis (or their imprint), there, or in the other book on Birdo. Spshu(talk) 22:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're not looking very hard. "Focal Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis". Diego (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←Still, from the book's name it isn't primarily about Birdo. Spshu (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can Disney brought HIT Entertainment?

When Mattel and Fisher-Price is no longer own HIT Entertainment next year. Disney acquires this company and deal is due to be finalized in February 2014. Sent me a message please and contact Disney if you can. SmallSoldiers123 (talk)

I see no news article or press release from Disney about such a purpose, until there is we can not report it as being so. Disney was one of the companies contacted to bid on HiT when Mattel won the bid, so I doubt Disney will be owning HiT soon unless there are financial problems at Mattel. Spshu (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Comics

" [article] at Don Markstein's Toonopedia" is the consensus format across WikiProject Comics. Its consistent use marks a consensus. It's important to have stylistic consistency, so I've restored the citation to the way it's generally seen throughout WPC. I hope you understand and can go along with this standardized form. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't a cite format at WikiProject Comics. Spshu (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not every single thing is covered there. This format is used throughout WikiProject Comics. I could provide you with, say, 25 examples. Would that be enough to convince you it is de facto format and that we should be consistent? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at MLPFIM

You are removing factual content under your claims of removing FB and Twitter links. For one, FB and Twitter are acceptable SPS sources if we can verify the owner. But the other details you are removing are factually correct and so your edits appear to be completely improper. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter and Facebook is a blog type website and are not allowed. So your claims are false that they are acceptable sources. The other was unsourced over long article intro factual or not. Spshu (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, you removed a paragraph out of the lead. Leads do not require sources as long as the points stated are sourced later, which is the case here. Second, on sources like Facebook and Twitter, they are not expressively ruled out. Per WP:SPS, as long as 1) we can verify the identity of those publishing the information (in one case, here, Daniel Ingram's FB account) and 2) we're not using it to source anything controversial (the show credits in this case) they are allowable. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead was overly long was also a point in cutting it out. But as you point out it needs to be source later, which is not the case looking through the article. "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." indicates that this information isn't overly important being on Facebook. And how it is verified that it is Daniel Ingram's FB account? Spshu (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is sourced later in the article, and the lead is a proper size for an article of that length. And verification of such accounts are based on long-term watching the accounts and their interaction with the community. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ingram's website currently redirects to his Twitter profile, which links directly to his Facebook page up at top. That's the main way we can verify that. dogman15 (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Lead, sorry I looked in the wrong sections and over look others.

So what that danielingrammusic.com redirects to twitter profile, etc. that doesn't verify anything. I can have danielinggram-music.com and link to some false FB and Twitter page. Spshu (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because those of us in the fandom (I know Dogman is too) have interacted with him, and have sufficient assurity of evidence over time this is his account. It's also not a controversial detail. (Similarly, we know Faust's DA account is fyre-flye, long confirmed by the community with her in person).

But more importantly, your edits removed information wholesale when sourced like that. If you thought the source was bad, the information certainly wasn't controversial and the right step would have been to remove and tag with something like {{cn}}. But other details, like removing the line about Pinkie Pie, was completely out of line. You can't hack and slash if you just disagree with the use of sources. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←No I can if it is not source, I can remove it since they are not proper sources. Spshu (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reason to believe the information is wrong? (ignoring the sourcing issue?) WP does not require every point to be sourced if the information is not controversial or readily obvious from the information given. You are very much misreading sourcing policy if this is your belief. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ingram Facebook page claims Ingram is to be credit for the show's music. People have assumed and demand I assume what they want to believe a source says. If is challenged then yes it needs to be sourced.

"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Spshu (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the show has credits to say this as well, so it is glaringly obvious. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that contradicts "| opentheme = "Friendship Is Magic", performed by Rebecca Shoichet and four others; Lyrics by Lauren Faust". Spshu (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this in any way contradictory? Daniel Ingram is the composer (not the singer or lyricist) for the MLPFIM theme song. This is easily proven by watching the credits of any MLPFIM episode. Unfortunately, I can't link them because of the spam filter. Anyway, it's wrong for you to suggest I haven't been following this discussion closely. There's no reason to believe @fyre_flye isn't Lauren Faust herself and citing her Twitter for her birthday and other information would be allowed per WP:SPS. █ EMARSEE 19:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He claims credit for the music, not just as composer which I would assume include being the lyricist. Spshu (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't allowed per WP:BLP on Faust. There isn't any reason to bevieve either about it being here twitter account. Spshu (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely wrong. As long as editors have reasonably strong assurance that social media accounts are owned by the people that are claimed (which we have here), they can be used to source non-controversial facts. What facts are considered controversial is not things like "who sung what song" but more like a person's opinions or viewpoint on a subject which only that person can clearly state. Twitter and other affirmed sources can be used for non-controversial information as long as the entire article is not built off those or a majority of those. (In other words, they should be there to back up and supplement reliable non-social media sources). --MASEM (t) 21:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

←You cannot confirm it, just your claims as having done so. Twitter is a blog (micro) and are consider unrealible. They are primary source, no original research is allowed here. Spshu (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can confirm Masem's claims. See here where Tara Strong (verified account on Twitter) asks her fans to follow Lauren Faust's Twitter account, @fyre_flye. █ EMARSEE 22:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further, since WP works on consensus, you can certainly question the validity of the owner of a specific account but realize that the decision will be based on consensus. I suspect if you poised the question if "@fyre_flye" was really Faust's twitter, you would fine an overwhelming assurance that it is hers, and consensus would ride on that. Questioning the validity and what evidence there is for it is fine (and you shouldn't be chastised for doing that via talk pages), but there's nothing outright that says that these can never by verified and thus invalid sources. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Your recent editing history at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MASEM (t) 20:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability and templates

I have noticed that you have removed some information from article "Lauren Faust" ([11], [12]). Now, the reasoning is obviously similar to the one you used for the article "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic", discussed above ([13]). However, that discussion concerns content and I would like to make a behavioral point (well, maybe more).

Looking at your last edits I have seen many cases when you removed information without references or with references that you have found insufficient. That didn't happen just in the articles I have mentioned, but also in "Primate (bishop)" ([14]). Now, it is true that all material should have good sources, but I think there are several problems with your approach.

First, the removals look rather hasty. In none of these cases the information looked obviously wrong. Couldn't the information without sources get Template:Citation needed? And the information with suspicious sources - Template:Unreliable source? And the information which is not confirmed by the given source - Template:Not in source? And then, after the template stays for some time - a week, a month, a year - the information could be removed without the conflicts. Or it could be sourced instead. As you can see, doing otherwise can end up less well...

Second, it would have been preferable to explain your reasoning. While in some cases it could be guessed easily, the edit summaries saying "remove FB & twitter source info; shorten opening;" ([15]) cannot be easily understood to say that you think that it is not certain that the authorship of the sources hasn't been demonstrated ([16]). A post on the talk page would have made your reasoning much clearer.

By the way, you should also participate in the discussions that already exist. In case of "Primate (bishop)" you have reverted User:Irish Melkite ([17]) without answering him on the talk page ([18])...

Third, you should revert less... [19], [20], [21], [22]... More discussion, less reverting.

Finally, some more effort to find references could prove beneficial. For example, it was not that hard to find out that "Nostra Aetate" of the Second Vatican Council ([23]) has a signature (among others, of course): "† Ego ANDREAS ROHRACHER, Archiepiscopus Salisburgensis, Primas Germaniae."... That would be a very good indicator that Archbishop of Salzburg is "Primas Germaniae", wouldn't you agree..?

So, I hope that things will get calmer soon and everything will be solved. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, none of them agree to place such any type of sourcing notice instead. Discuss seems to be the ambush around here, such that little editing gets done and poor sourcing continues. The behavior issue is they don't seem to care about their sources or having any to begin with and pretend I am the problem. Don't forget that under WP:BLP keeps living person's article to a higher standard. The IMDB.com is not an allowable source as any one can edit it. I stay away from primary sources since you will end up with an original research article if you depend on them too much. Second, who can really prove who is posting to a Twitter or Facebook account. You cannot.

You are also making assumptions about what kind of effort I make in finding references. I have spend time tracking down most of the sources given in the Primate article, but of course you can not seem to look, but you can see when I have overlook a talk post. I did try a couple of websites to try and confirm those edits. I have worked hard to find secondary sources which some will remove for no reason and insert a primary source, have you tracked all those down. Or the article where the edit summary demfames me by claiming I edit an article to supposedly defame them then claims I am edit warring over spelling and his blanking that he did under the flag of the defamation. Irish Melkite removed sourced information -- when you are so quick to jump on my cause for doing less -- and what he is talking about is not relevent to the reversion. Spshu (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Yet, none of them agree to place such any type of sourcing notice instead." - well, if they are under impression (true or false) that there is nothing wrong with sourcing, why would they..? In general it is the user who thinks that sourcing is insufficient who adds the tags...

"Discuss seems to be the ambush around here, such that little editing gets done and poor sourcing continues." - sorry, but I don't think I understood what you meant...

"Don't forget that under WP:BLP keeps living person's article to a higher standard." - true.

"The IMDB.com is not an allowable source as any one can edit it." - well, I can agree that it is, er, suboptimal... And I did tag it so ([24]).

"I stay away from primary sources since you will end up with an original research article if you depend on them too much." - yes, but in this case, let's say, finding out a birthday did not require any original research worth mentioning.

"Second, who can really prove who is posting to a Twitter or Facebook account. You cannot." - well, actually, I can. And I did ([25])... You know, we do not need to prove it "Beyond the shadow of a doubt". "Reasonable doubt" should be enough.

"You are also making assumptions about what kind of effort I make in finding references. I have spend time tracking down most of the sources given in the Primate article, but of course you can not seem to look, but you can see when I have overlook a talk post." - OK, fair enough. Sorry about the assumption. However, I have formed a second hypothesis: could it be that you do not know Latin and do not try to read it..? It would explain you missing this source, as well as this couple of edits: [26], [27]... Though I do not really see why you removed "Code of Canon Law, canon 438"... A misclick perhaps..?

Now, looking at the Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches, "Titulus VIII DE EXARCHIIS ET DE EXARCHIS", I do not see anything like "exarchus apostolicus"... And we have "Can. 321 - § 1. Exarchus, qui Episcopus ordinatus non est, habet durante munere privilegia et insignia primae post episcopalem dignitatis. " - thus the exarchs covered here can be mere priests, not ordained bishops. They are unlikely to rank with primates...

My guess would be that the same title "exarch" is used differently by Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (as well as the ancient use by Latin Catholics). Could it be that the "Catholic Encyclopedia" talks just about Eastern Orthodox..? It could be that there were no Eastern Catholic exarchs at that time... That would explain why the sources seem to disagree.

By the way, it looks like "Irish Melkite" (and "Esoglou" [28]) has confirmed this version ([29]). Thus I guess that it is not correct to say that "Irish Melkite removed sourced information -- [...] -- and what he is talking about is not relevent to the reversion."...

Now it is nice that you have such zeal for Wikipedia, but if, on the same day, you have been reverted or criticised by so many editors and defended by none... Perhaps you should count it as a "bad day", have a rest and think everything through tomorrow..? Maybe we are all wrong. But what if we are not..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the statement regarding exarchs being the Eastern Catholic Church equivalents of primates. It is not, despite your inclusion of a reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, sourced in that text. An exarch in an Eastern Catholic Church (as referenced above, either priest or bishop) is, in effect, the head of a canonical jurisdiction which is not yet of sufficient import or stature to be elevated to an eparchy. In other words, it is on the bottom of a ladder of canonical jurisdictions which can effectively be described as: exach/exarchate (erected by either a major archbishop, a patriarch, or the pope - in which latter case, it is termed an apostolic exarchate); eparch/eparchy; archeparch/archeparchy; metropolitan archeparch/metropolitan archeparchy; major archbishop or archeparch/major archbishopric or archeparchy; patriarch/patriarchate.Irish Melkite (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources noticeboard

You may wish to join in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion on Code of Canon Law as reliable source for Catholic canon law and GCatholic.org. Esoglou (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Fields

Any reason why you think he's not notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because he doesn't have enough significant coverage ie. by major media. Yes, he has one the NT Times/About article but other than that none of the other are specifically about him nor major media. --Spshu (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you reading? I've added a few more news articles specifically about him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Dragons

Was there any other reason to add the "Primary sources" tag? I have discussed this in Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archives/ 8#Article issues? You can discuss it there. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes

Please stop adding links to other navboxes in existing navboxes. Please read WP:NAVBOX and WP:Navigation templates to understand how they work. They are there to provide links to existing articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them. You are making stuff up. Switch to a different navbox meets the need to "links to existing articles." and are not expressly forbidden. --Spshu (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not explicitly "forbidden" in the guidelines, no, but then maybe whoever wrote the guidelines didn't think it would come up. However, the guidelines explain how navboxes are supposed to work, "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles". Another navbox is not an article, and therefore should not be included. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Rob. As I stated in my edit summaries on those navboxes, per WP:NAVBOX every article included as a link in the navbox should also transclude that navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional. If you disagree, I would suggest that you take it to the talk page of those templates, rather than edit warring. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point - you can't transclude a navbox within a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there are transclude navboxes out there, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the inter-navbox links as it isn't Wikipedia:Transclusion or Transclusion. --Spshu (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some how, readers must not know about the other navboxes. --Spshu (talk) 13: 21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

AIG Article

Thanks for your help cleaning up the AIG article. Do you have a quick moment to look at this section [30]? Right now, it has no context to anything. The original sponsorship post had context. Could we find a way to incorporate this chronologically in an existing element and remove this standalone entry. Let's do that? By the way, I'm working on correcting the chronology and grammatical errors in the article. I am also working on distinguishing the financial crisis from AIG's repayment of the loan. Thanks for helping out.Hiland109 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work on updating the Sponsorship section into the History chronology. I'm working on expanding the history of AIG. Interested to collaborate?Hiland109 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disney animation studios

Why did you delete the Dream Quest Images article and redirect to Disney Animation, rather than simply appending your summary of Dream Quest's work to the Disney page and linking to the main article? In doing so, you've eliminated valuable historical information (credit list, for example) as well as the original article's history. Hats off to Disney Animation and all, but I think some wiki readers might be interested to learn more about Dream Quest. Please consider replacing the original article by undoing your edit and then link to that from your Disney Animation article. Tekkonkinkreet (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why, notability. Would you have prefered that I just request that the Dream Quest Images article be deleted instead? It isn't "Disney Animation" (or "Walt Disney Animation Studios") it is "Disney animation studios", more specific: it contains other animation studios of Disney, so your "Hats off to Disney Animation and all.." statement is meaningless. Spshu (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O, and when I asked for comments on this at the WikiProject Disney, you can see no one commented. Spshu (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your combative response, but I'm sorry to have bothered you. Please note that I didn't revert your changes or make any edits to your article. I was simply asking for an explanation for your deleting some useful information about DQI. I don't want to argue with you about the relative notability of "Disney animation studios" and DQI - obviously we disagree. But it seems to me that notability, by itself, doesn't really justify your having actually deleted the original article. And I might add that the fact that no one responded to your query for comments does not excuse your actions either. You might have simply added a DQI section to your "Disney animation studios" article and referenced the original article for those interested in a more detailed discussion of DQI's history. That, it seems to me, would have achieved your goal of incorporating DQI to the "Disney animation studios" article while also allowing for expansion of the DQI article beyond what might be relevant to a discussion of "Disney animation studios" as a whole. (An example: Microsoft acquired Skype, but there remains a Skype Technologies article). Again, I'm sorry for any inconvenience my question has caused you.Tekkonkinkreet (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability determines whether or not the subject gets an articles, so you are arguing about the relative notability of DQI. End results if the DQI information wasn't merged with Disney animation studios and notability isn't established then the result would complete deletion of the article including the article's history (which I did not address your false accusation that I deleted it). So it is justifiable. You are the one coming here and being combative me with language like: "And I might add that the fact that no one responded to your query for comments does not excuse your actions either." WP says to be bold, so yes it does allow my actions. Your suggestion that "You might have simply added a DQI section ... and referenced the original article for those interested in a more detailed discussion of DQI's history." still would have required notability on DQI's part to have an article. Other Disney animated units Circle 7, DisneyToon Studios and Pixar have such an arrangement since they are notable. Spshu (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess I have to question your judgement in deeming DQI not worthy of note. Comparison to Pixar is unfair and I don't think WP is meant only to give space to the Pixars of the world. Before acquisition DQI won multiple Oscars for visual effects work, so I think it is safe to say that its history as an innovator in the field of motion control photography and photo-mechanical and optical effects has historical value. At the very least, I think a list of DQI credits would be of interest to the WP audience. Yes, WP says to be bold - I won't argue with that - but the nature of WP is that of a collaborative enterprise. As such, I'd hope, even if we disagree about the notability of DQI, that we can reach a compromise.Tekkonkinkreet (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you'd reconsider, and restore the Dream Quest Images article so that we may continue to expand it beyond what would be appropriate in the context of your Disney animation studios article. Two Oscars for visual effects, one for technical achievement, three more nominations, an Emmy, and several Peabodys - how is that not noteworthy?Tekkonkinkreet (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find another major news source to move it to the notable level. The films credit seem to off to begin with: no "Dinosaur", included movies not worked on, excluded movies worked on. Notability isn't transferable, so winning Oscars or other awards doesn't necessarily make DQI/Secret Lab notable. But its work seem to land in the early www days of the internet, so source online are hard to come by. Spshu (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I completely agree with your comment that online sources referencing Dream Quest's pre-Disney work are sparse. Unfortunate, but very true. The credit list was a work-in-progress, so there may have been omissions, particularly from Dream Quest's work post-Disney acquisition. But I confirmed the list with more than one former Dream Quest staff (and current Disney Animation staff as well) and I'm quite certain that the films listed were indeed worked on by DQ (though DQ may not have been the primary visual effects vendor on every film listed). Next time I will include references for all of these credits. I don't quite understand your comment that,

Notability isn't transferable, so winning Oscars or other awards doesn't necessarily make DQI/Secret Lab notable.

Am I correct in understanding that your main criticism is a lack of external sources? Not to contradict anything you've said, I will just mention here that the bulk of DQ's innovation was prior to the Disney acquisition, as a visual effects company, not as an animation company. Visual effects industry experts I've spoken with on the subject (including three I spoke with at Disney Animation in May of this year) are quick to acknowledge DQ's having taken the art of visual effects to a new level at a crucial period of transition from photo-mechanical (so-called "analog") VFX to digital (CGI) techniques. The fact that DQ was not very adept at promoting its own work to the public is an unfortunate one. Regardless, I'm currently collecting print sources that cover DQ's work (industry and popular press as well as a few books) and hope you'll reconsider allowing DQ it's own page in addition to the mention in your Disney animation studios article once I've got this together. Thank you.Tekkonkinkreet (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Quest Images

A Google search leads to a trip to the LA Times search engine, and the LA Times wrote quite a few articles on Dream Question Images: http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/dream-quest-images. It makes me no personal nevermind, but according to the rules, significant third party coverage, major achievements in field in question, and Academy Awards would very much make it notable as a histroical topic. Its later acquisition by Disney should not render this invalid. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times only counts as one source for notability. Notability is not inheritable so DQI earning an Academy Award doesn't make them notable. As you can see this was asked and answered above. Spshu (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for printed and scholarly references reveals several sources mentioning the studio as a VFX pioneer, discussing the work it did on films before its acquisition by Disney, etc. The strictly web-related references tend to begin and end with Animation World Network, Ain't It Cool News, and Jim Hill Media, but out of all of these, plus at least five LA Times articles I saw, I would think this studio is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (at least one source on the studio, the Jim Hill article, is used as a reference in the article on the studio's founder, Hoyt Yeatman. I think it would be a good idea to ask for a third opinion. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film Studio

Are there any reasons you insist that...

Columbia Pictures is linked instead of the parent brand, but Walt Disney Pictures isn't?
The two DreamWorks studios are clearly indicated as stand-alone brands only in hidden text? DreamWorks Animation is still often called just DreamWorks, and their movies are even branded as simply "DreamWorks".

--98.26.30.240 (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia is the recognized Major Studio while Sony Picture holds it and many of the other units consider a part of the "Columbia" major studio. Disney is the only Major Studio formed conglomerate not snapped up by a larger conglomerate, thus it links to Disney Studios, the highest in the conglomerate structure that contains all "major studio" components: distribution (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures), production (Walt Disney Pictures, main unit) and the actual studio location(s) (Disney Studio Services).
They are not stand-alone brands but stand-alone companies (relative to each other) as the note says and are indicated as such in the template if it was otherwise it would look like this: "*DreamWorks (Dream Works Animation)" (but we are not including other studio units). The official name of DreamWorks Studios is DW II Distribution Co., LLC as best as we can tell as DW II license the use of the DreamWorks Studios name from the trademark holder, DreamWorks Animation. Spshu (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why not call it DreamWorks Studios in the template? --98.26.30.240 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems doubly redunate with the template being about "studios" and DreamWorks being in the "Mini-Major" studio group. I guess on a disambig. level that might make sense. Spshu (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_4#Template:U._S._Network_Shows_footer

It seems that you mean to show support for Keeping the templates, but you never officially bolded any such sentiment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_4#Template:U._S._Network_Shows_footer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bay City, Michigan

I reverted your edits to Bay City, Michigan because you removed information such as the makeup of "West Bay City" being comprised of Banks, Salzburg, and Wenona. Also, consolidating the limited information you left under the section "Neighborhood" makes little sense, as it belongs in the "History" section.--Asher196 (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I added it and it was move to the West Bay City, Michigan article where it belonged as at the time I didn't know that West Bay City had its own article. West Bay City is ID as a current named populated place in the GNIS as such classified as a neighborhood. Secondly, you remove all the information you claimed you wanted to keep. You also marked as if I was a vandal and as a minor edit. Your edit will be reverse as in error. --Spshu (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WildStorm. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. postdlf (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a centralized discussion about the merger issue has been started here. postdlf (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going about trying to eliminate articles you don't like, by turning them into redirect, and edit then to make it worse edit warring to try to get what you want, is rather wrong of you. You also tag articles that have references proving they are notable, with notability tags. Dream Focus 22:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are not assuming good faith nor have you read any of the discussion linked above nor can you prove that I don't like them. Prehaps, I like WP more and don't go around making WP what I want, but follow the guidelines. Also, it takes two to edit war. To a degree, it was a discussion taking place with the edit summaries. If you if looked at the edit summaries would show that the other party had no reason. Second, having references doesn't make them notable. The sources need be of significate coverage not routine coverage. I could launch an attack that you start articles that aren't notable, but I have not, instead I tag it as unnotable giving you a chance to make it notable or move it into a notable and related article. This is what I did with the Imprint article, create an article to hold this info until notable sources guidline is met. Would you preferred that I took your new article directly to deletion? Spshu (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what "routine coverage" means. That deals with restaurant reviews in local newspapers, and whatnot. Anyway, best to continue this discussion at [31]. So far it doesn't seem like anyone has been able to reason with you, and I doubt I'm going to get through to you. Dream Focus 23:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the whatnot. Right, no one has been reasoning there except me. They just want the article because they want the seperate articles. Spshu (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imprints of DC Comics images

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Imprints of DC Comics, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I didn't upload them. They already exist for the articles that this article should replace. (But is being fought for "I want" reason.) Please go to the file's page to determine who uploaded them. --Spshu (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

added to an article You did add the files to Imprints of DC Comics without complying with WP:NFC specifically see WP:NFURG Werieth (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These images only exist in one spot. So if the do not comply with "WP:NFC specifically see WP:NFURG" on Imprints of DC Comics then they failed at their original article. --Spshu (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is incorrect, they had rationales for their original articles, but not for the new one. Werieth (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a replacement article as all those article should be redirect here. Plus, the images only exist once on the WP servers regardless of how many articles they are on. Thus if those images are invalid at Imprint of DC Comics then the rationales are not valid for their original articles. Also, you didn't remove them all. Spshu (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It complys with 3a. "3.a.Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." So reusing the image instead of finding another image of non-free content for the article would be a violent of 3a. Spshu (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is where you are wrong, the files have non-free use rationales for their original articles. (See WP:NFCC#10) But do not have a rationale for the article where you are adding them. Each use of a file requires a separate rationale. Please see The guide on writing rationales. Until the original articles are redirected the files shouldn't be added to that page. Werieth (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Favre1fan93 edit warring

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I have given my explanation - the extra reference tags are not needed in the infobox, just sourcing the new, unknown production company. And your reverting of the citation, is not consistent to how the sources are used on the page. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: ). Thank you. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please read WP:SELFSOURCE and note that it is acceptable to use Twitter as a source about information about themselves or their works. You may also wish to take a note of the following policies WP:BRD, WP:3RR and WP:EW and remember to discuss changes on a talk page. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of topic is "Hello"? It doesn't tell me a thing.

Go read WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources..." So Twitter doesn't have to be accepted. It is up to you to defend it, not go to war over it as if it is absolutely acceptable.

You, need to read WP:BRD as it says I don't have to "remember to discuss changes on a talk page." It was the addition of the twitter that was the bold edit that was reverted. You didn't go to discussion. And alot of times, the edit warring party will not come to the talk page unless reverted. So you too need to "note of the following policies WP:BRD, WP:3RR and WP:EW". Spshu (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Television

This is a notice that there is a discussion involving yourself at Talk:Marvel Television#August 2013 content dispute. I invite to please come and participate. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DT2s, etc.

I no longer edit TV stations, mostly because of you. So you are now edit-warring across numerous TV station articles with yourself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tribune Entertainment/Studios

Apparently you failed to understand the reason not to change the information on the Tribune Entertainment page. I read the source from "Broadcasting & Cable", where it says in the article "Tribune has named Warner Bros. executive Matt Cherniss president/general manager of WGN America and the newly formed Tribune Studios.". Tribune Studios is a new entity of the Tribune Company and is not formerly known as Tribune Entertainment, where that company was shut down after Tribune announced to end its television distribution business says here. If Tribune Entertainment was renamed Tribune Studios, all sources would've said so, therefore they didn't. So this is your warning to you regarding to this information before you end up edit warring, which is against rules and regulations here at Wikipedia. Edit warring can cause you to get blocked from editing. Read the sources properly next time without starting any trouble, and have a nice day. Thank you. 99.46.226.13 (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you don't understand how corporate PR works as I pointed out that with Disney Consumer Products (DCP) announcing a "New" unit, Disney Consumers Product, with the appointment of its current head when DCP has existed for years. You were reversed as the edit summary indicated for not waiting for consensus. Thus it is you creating trouble. Spshu (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand how that works. It is you that failed to understand that the two Tribune companies differ from one another by reading the sources properly without you changing anything to go your way. That is where you made your mistakes. I did not create trouble; you did. This isn't Burger King where you can have it your way. If you don't believe in compromise or teamwork without edit warring to have it your way, then I suggest you move on. 99.46.226.13 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who is edit warring as you have not waited for any other opinion. You were reversed for not doing so. You acknowledge that company do declare "new" companies that already exist. So once again, you are trying to blame me for your actions. Yup, you can have it your way. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Procedural decline; open-proxy review requests must be made at the IP talk page. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I cannot edit outside of my talk page, then how do I edit the IP talk page? Nothing instructed me to post there and when blocked when I am at the Library (who has the open proxy which is blocked) I can not edit there. Spshu (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italo-Albanian Catholic Church

Hello Spshu, happy to meet you :-) We appear to have a conflict concerning the interpretation of the CE article, and in particular, as you say, the first paragraph, as nowhere do I find anything close in meaning to "This particular church is also referred to by the name Italo-Greek Catholic Church [no objections to this part], which is derived from the Italo-Greek (Italo-Græcus) demonym which was traditionally used to classify the inhabitants of Southern Italy and Sicily; people who are modern day Italians but are historically of Greek origin." IMHO you are making confusion in part due to the outdated nature of the source which tends to uniform Greeks and Albanians, whichin Italy have long been felt as one due to there common Byzantine origin. The article then continues in the first paragraph to apply those that are part of the church: 1) old ecclesiastical communities; 2) all those Greek colonies founded by Greek merchants in important Italian maritime cities; 3) the Greek and Albanian minorities present on Italian soil, especially the latter. Adding a personal opinion, I suspect this article is rather outdated (1913) and that in the meanwhile Greek and Albanian minorities in Italy have been separated (I find it extremely tough to believe the Greek minority would have stayed in a church called "Italo-Albanian"). I hope to have persuaded you; if not at all, well maybe we should try some sort of dispute resolution.Aldux (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I confused when you write such a confusing post. The CE source doesn't outdate itself for alternative but older name of the church, but you want to throw the whole CE article out as a source via reliablity, which is the primary source (being used 10 times) for the WP article. You claim that you explain why Verifiability or WP:RS, but have not. The Catholic Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia which are general better fact checked as it had a five member editorial board. Check the talk page (under "Requested move" and "Moved again?") regarding Italo-Albanian name. Reminder, we go with the common name not official names at WP. Spshu (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Metro League table

On August 27 when updating the Flint Metro League article to reflect the upcoming changes to that league beginning in 2014, I noticed in this revision that you changed the table from the one I had put there in March and said that you had "restored sourced version." I had kept the sources in my revision but had presented the information in a more conventional table and narrative.

IMHO, the table on the current revision of the article is awkward and cumbersome. I've never seen information presented in a table that way. I think that a more conventional table with a graphical timeline would be appropriate (I had done both of these things on the Big Nine Conference article), but I'd like to know what you think. Dafoeberezin3494 (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Pictures

I'm starting a discussion here so our explanations aren't restricted by edit summaries, and to avoid any future edit warring at Walt Disney Pictures.

I'd like to know what you're trying uphold between Walt Disney Pictures and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. In this edit, you claimed that WDP and WDSMP are the same and yet in these subsequent edits [32] [33] you're telling Trivialist and I to stop mixing them up (which we're not, we have them as seprate units). What exactly are you asserting?

WDP is a production company/film label/banner/brand. WDSMP is the The Walt Disney Studios' overall theatrical distribution division, which distributes films from other units besides WDP (including Marvel, Touchstone, and Disneynature). That's essentially what Trivialist and I are trying to keep intact. Also, the reason as to why there is a "Not to be confused with..." at the article's top, is to disambiguate WDP from WDSMP, since they both have similarly-sounding names.

Like I explained in one of my edit summaries, your edits have absolutely no reputable sources to back them up. That makes your edits original research and fair game for us to revert them on that basis alone. The article already had sources proving that Walt Disney Pictures is a film label and now, all of a sudden, you're changing up the whole article and removing such references. Examples include;

Founded in 1950 - Source?
Removal of animated film mentions - Films from Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar, DisneyToon Studios and occasionally Studio Ghibli are released by WDP.
Removal of the Distribution subsection - Already explained above

Thanks. I hope to expect a civil and timely response soon. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world are we going through this again!!!!

No, one is the production arm, which is name Walt Disney Picture (WDP) here on WP, and the other the distribution arm, the formerly incorporated BVMPD, which is named Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (WDSMP) on WP. I am saying they currently use both version of the name, WDP and WDSMP. This has been argued about between you and I multiple times now, which you weakly some what agree that you change your mind but don't stated it directly.

You are mixing them up you have the production arm distributing other units' movies! WSP: First you name it a "film studio" which is indicative of production and distribution. "and serves as the main distributor brand for several of Disney's other production companies." Um, since the distribution arm uses the same brand(s) (WDP & WDSMP), you are thusly claiming the production arm as its distribution unit. You who attacked me with "I'm frankly exhausted that this issue has not been subdued, despite concrete reasoning being provided by editors." when you felt that Marvel Studios could not hold the distribution rights to its movies because it doesn't have a distribution arm, say that another Disney conglomerate production unit (WDP) is out there distributing films despite not being the distribution arm. That is one step further than holding the distribution rights and I didn't even argue that.

So, Walt Disney Studios isn't an "reputable sources" about the name of its units? "[But per Walt Disney Studios, what we call Walt Disney Pictures is called Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and per the Walt Disney Co.'s Our businesses page: The Walt Disney Studios states "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" - "Industry: Live-Action Film Production" Business Week also indicates that "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Inc. operates as a motion picture and television feature distribution company." Business Week also shows separate presidents of Disney Studios Motion Pictures for production and distribution."

Founded in 1950 - Source?

First live action movie, Treasure Island, right in the text of the article where it indicates that the division was started. Based on "July 4 1949: Filming begins in England on Treasure Island." (source: Walt Disney - The Triumph of the American Imagination, by Neal Gabler, 2006. Page 470.) it should be July 4, 1949. Disney Co. states [1950 which is Treasure Island's release year.

Removal of animated film mentions - Films from Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar, DisneyToon Studios and occasionally Studio Ghibli are released by WDP.

WDP is the live action production unit and doesn't release films WDSMP does.

Removal of the Distribution subsection - Already explained above

WDP is the live action production unit and doesn't release films WDSMP does. Spshu (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's misuse of the term "film studio" is not my fault. That's how the lead sentence has been written since July 2010, and that's why it was retained in my version. The misuse of the term's definition is something that I didn't even notice until you pointed it out. If I had noticed it before, then I would have changed it.

You seem to have misinterpreted the following phrase; "serves as the main distributor brand for several of Disney's other production companies". What that line suggests is not that WDP is a distributor or that it dabbles in distributing, instead it means that WDP is (in addition to being a production company) a film brand used by WDSMP to distribute other films, including animated films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar. This is directly proven by the Walt Disney Studios' official website's About page, where it states Walt Disney Pictures (referred to just as "Disney") as one of their film banners that also "includes Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar Animation Studios". The overview page found here also states: "Walt Disney Pictures, which includes live-action films as well as animated films from Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios".

Your reasoning for removing the distribution subsection is still unclear. The only reason that subsection existed, was to show that WDSMP is the one responsible for the live-action unit's distribution, and not WDP itself. Yet, you removed it for that very same reason.

On a more important note, you mentioned that there are two WDSMP presidents; one for production and one for distribution. Are you referring to Sean Bailey and Robert A. Chapek? If so, then I have to hand it to you, in arguing that WDP and WDSMP are unified units. The fact that there two presidents with WDSMP in their titles is strong evidence in favor of that. Unfortunately, the problem that's evident here is that Wikipedia's current articles don't explain that missing link at all. Instead, our articles portray WDSMP as a company responsible only for distribution, instead of what the Walt Disney Studios/Business Week sources are saying it really is. Therefore, if they are a unified unit, I suggest that you and I should rewrite these two articles, so that they accurately convey Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures as both a production/distribution company and Walt Disney Pictures as the live-action production component of it. What do you think? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unit	formed	Pre-drop of BV name	Current full name
production	1950	Walt Disney Pictures (?)	Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Production
distribution	1953	Buena Vista Pictures Distribution Co.	Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Distribution

See both have the same "full" name with their division/company/department (how ever you want to catagorized them) name optional, ie. they operate under the same name, unified in name usage but are seperate departments with one formerly a seperate corporation (BVPD). The production division, for what ever reason, was assigned the common name for the WP article name and distribution having the full name at WP to disambiguated them instead of say "WDP (Production)" and "WDP (distribution)".

Re: distribution subsection removal because it does distribute films and WDP is equally a brand of the distribution arm also thus distribution usage of WDP refers to the distribution arm not the production arm. The section with removed and was replace with a sentence in the lead paragraph: "Nearly all of Walt Disney Pictures' releases are distributed theatrically by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, through home media platforms via Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment and for syndication to TV stations and digital outlets by Disney-ABC Domestic Television."

Re: two WDSMP presidents, Sean Bailey (President, Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production) and Robert A. Chapek, yes, but Chapek seems to have left and his duties have been move up to Alan Bergman, President, The Walt Disney Studios currently. Spshu (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Jetix

Now since you didn't show me where the answer to my questions is and you acted all moany and huffy, the article has been protected. We could have even made a deal, but no, you just undid my edits because you think they aren't correct. 78.146.191.228 (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jetix Play UK

That's strange. I don't remember a Jetix Play in UK. TDFan2006 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Play UK again

If Jetix Play in UK was Telewest exclussive and it closed in 2007, how did Jetix Play close in 2010? The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that it was exclusive? If you read the edit, the source, the MASIVE DB, indicates there were other carriers. --Spshu (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League 3000

Justice League 3000 receives significant coverage in reliable sources. All of those sources are deemed reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 20:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not for notability: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time," A few comic book website do not indicate Justice League 3000 has met this requirement. So, even if those sites are "deemed reliable source" by WP standards, they don't meet WP Wikipedia:Notability standards because the comic book fandom isn't the world at large. It is you who there for is edit warring. --Spshu (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I suggest that you either accept the notability notice, find two notable source, or build it as a section within another article like Justice League. Spshu (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DF is actually right here. The sites used are some of the top comic sites (like Comic Book Resources and Newsarama), and commonly used to source articles on comic books, in part that most comic coverage does not happen in mainstream press. These source, as I've found, are peer-reviewed and tend to be considered appropriate expert sites for comic books. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, we do have different degree of standards in considering what are sources for notability in different fields. The type of sourcing required for academic topics isn't going to be the same for more contemporary culture topics. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring, which should have been an obvious outcome of you continuing to revert other editors at Justice League 3000. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have not been reported for edit warring. Second, they have reverting contrary to the notability standards, so they are the edit warring party. At this point, since I have not been reported and you have chosen to block me, there for you have chosen a side in the matter. Thus you should not be blocking me. Some how, how they could not stand a notability notice on the article, thus chose to edit war over it. Spshu (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, even agrees that he chooses NOT to follow the general notability standard in his statement that: "we do have different degree of standards in considering what are sources for notability in different fields." Differing fields still needs to fall under general notability standard else, then what is the point of the general notability standard?

As such, Postdlf, you have issued a punitive block contrary to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, since they have signaled that they are the disruptive parties. Spshu (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you refuse to accept that you did anything wrong. Will you continue to try to eliminate that article by replacing it with a redirect despite everyone reverting you, and claim everyone else is being disruptive instead? Reliable sources include subject specific magazines, websites with proper editorial review, television shows that only review certain types of things, and whatnot. We don't just wipe out all comic book articles since the vast majority of them will never get mentioned in a standard newspaper. Dream Focus 17:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, you are wikilawyering and I'm not playing that game with you. I blocked you to stop further edit warring, noting only that there were multiple editors disagreeing with you regardless of what you think the correct guideline interpretation is. I didn't even realize it at the time I blocked you, but I personally warned you on this talk page for the same kind of edit warring in the same subject area just a few months ago. And you are all over the archives of the edit warring noticeboard, having already received multiple warnings going back more than a year. You will discuss disagreements, and you will respect the consensus of other editors instead of reverting to get your way. Further conduct of the same kind will result in additional blocks. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed to a redirect, because you and other edit warred against having a notability tag. Notability is a higher standard than reliable sources, so yes most of the comic book article should not be here. Routine coverage like reviews and sites like these don't count towards notability. You do understand that their are other places even other wiki sites, wikia.com for one that are all inclusive right? Wikia was founded by the founder of Wikipedia, so it is understood that not everything should be covered on WP. I general just give a notability tag, so editors have a chance to prove notability. But instead, you go to war over that tag. I even gave you some [other options to end the edit war and another just now, but instead you continued to edit war didn't you?

So, DreamFocus, you would agree with a gang of bullies attacking a single student just because they are the larger group and you think I should too. "You can fool most of the people most of time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." which means the majority can be wrong.

reversion 1 of the notability tag
reversion 2
reversion 3

Postdlf, you say are not playing the wikilawyering game and you go right into wikilawyering by citing previous events including being at ANI/3RR. So, what if I am at ANI/3RR, I have been equally the reporting party in some of those cases and even counter reported on the other party. So I should be dinged for both being wrongly reported or being the reporting party? (I have been there only 13 times to your 71 times, Postdlf. So under that standard, you should be blocked permanently.) And most of the time I have been at ANI/3RR, the adimins wikilawyer a reason not to block the other parties (not 4 reverts despite the 3 in the 3RR, no discussion on the talk page of the article, etc). Some times, I have started discussion on the talk pages but they other parties will not show up unless they are reversed or the page block. So, I should agree that people should gang up on others that just OK with you Postdlf. So, I didn't given any options in this discussion to end the edit war? Look again Postdlf. So, there is not a inherent consensus in the general notability standard already? Spshu (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is applies to different subject areas by considering for those subject areas what are appropriate sources. Comic Book Resources is not the New York Times , and I wouldn't use CBR to claim sourcing for a BLP or major international event as I would the NYtimes. But they are proven as experts in the field of comic books and shown editorial control over their content, so if its an issue with comic books, then yes, they are a sufficient source to be used to justify notability. The GNG is not broken as you think, it's understanding that the GNG does not make any stipulation on the quality of the sources as long as they meet WP:RS, which will be a function of the field of study the topic is in; this is a consession to understand that we are more than just an academic encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I quote the Notability standard, and what you say is false. Comic book news sites are not the world at large. Spshu (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely familiar with the notability guideline. Please tell me where a site like Comic Book Resources cannot be used as a source, based on the presumption that it does meet requirement of being a reliable source.

Again, I will stress: WP is not just an academic encyclopedia, and we cover a lot more than a traditional encyclopedia. If we limited sourcing to "the world at large" we would be cutting out about 90% of the material, not just from contemporary culture but higher sciences, regional matters, etc. There is not a baseline to quality of sourcing as you think there is. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, postdlf, you seem to have failed to do any investigation of Dream Focus who has 350 trips to the Admin Noticeboards and is a know super-inclusionist. And 3 editors (Dream Focus, IP editor & Masem) is not multiple editors by any definition, heck I have had 5 to 2 called no consensus and 7 to 1 called thin consensus. Masem, thanks for discussing the matter even if we don't agree, unlike other.

WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
WP:NNC: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation." thus the difference between significant, or notable, source and reliable sources.
WP:ORGDEPTH: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements.." " Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:" "..routine restaurant reviews, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or.." Thus reviews and interviews don't count towards notability.

Audience
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.
Independence of sources
A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.

WP:SIGCOV: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Spshu (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- ORGDEPTH doesn't apply at all, this is a comic book, not an organization (even if it is about a fictional organization of sorts). However, reviews for any media, as long as it is an independent source, are secondary sources and always count towards notability. Yes, you do have a fair issue with the fact that sources from the comic book industry being used to cover comic books could possibly be taken as lack of independence, but this would then apply to narrow academic topics (like higher maths), many films, TV shows, and the like, and we'd have to drastically cut those down too, and that's just going to happen. The sources in question have a somewhat narrow focus, but they cover the whole industry, thus they are considered broad (not of limited interest) and published to the Internet (broad circulation). Basically, you're interpreting the sources used here in a manner completely contrary to the current consensus across all WP. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DC Comics isn't an organization? Quotes are interpretations? Wow! That is really strange. Just because the are published to the Internet doesn't mean they have "broad circulation". Instead, you are stating that every one ignores what the rules (supposedly based on consensus) are and goes on what they feel style consensus.

Movies, TV show, and the like are main stream and are covered by main stream media. Just stating "The sources in question have a somewhat narrow focus, but they cover the whole industry, thus they are considered broad (not of limited interest) and published to the Internet (broad circulation)." No, because what a comic book monthly circulation numbers is like 30,000 copies sold compared to $50 million dollar box office at an average ticket price of $10 (guess at, seems reasonable) means 5,000,000 saw the movie. Math is not limited interest because everyone has to use it (wow, I just used it in movies vs. CB, thus a point for it not being of limited interest), and you indicate that WP is suppose to be academic + encyclopedia. Also as previously pointed out there is the Wikia.com wikis which was started by WP's founder, which makes it clearly not every thing will be cover at WP.

And CBR is such an editorial controled site, not, here they publish straight up a press release. Newarama does the same for the same topic. Zero, editorial control in doing that. And the Comic Vine article is based on a CBR article and they swiped the images from CBR as the images are marked 'CBR excusive' with no credit to CBR any where on the page. Bleeding Cool states: "Disclaimer: This site is full of news, gossip and rumour. You are invited to use your discretion and intelligence when discerning which is which. BleedingCool.com cannot be held responsible for falling educational standards. Bleeding Cool is neither fair nor balanced, but it is quite fun." The other two sources are an interview and a review. Spshu (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even the New York Times publishes press releases. [34] But we aren't citing press releases as significant coverage. Dream Focus 16:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about the article DC Comics, then yes, ORGDEPTH would apply (and of course there's no question DC comics is notable). But we're talking about a comic book, so it does not. And just because sales figures are not in the millions doesn't mean we don't cover comics - the fact that we get comic-base superhero movies all the time as well as popular television shows (the Walking Dead) means they are still considered influential pieces of art. If you start talking about numbers, there's probably a lot less people involved in higher academic topics then that read comics, but we're not going to remove them. And save for the comicvine (Which I do know is a wiki-like site) your arguments on the rest of the sites just don't hold water.

If you really feel we should not have this article, feel free to take it to AFD. However, my prediction is that it will be speedily kept because it meets notability guidelines, even if those of use that reverted your change do not get involved. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rereaded the quote, it clearly extends beyond the company itself: "...the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it."

Only when the notability guidelines are mangled like you attempt in claiming just because the sites are on the internet that they are of broad interest and circulation. And higher academic topic should be cover long before any comic book topic as that is the point over and above any popular culture as it is an encyclopedia. Spshu (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're the first person I've seen interpret that line in ORGDEPTH to refer to published entertainment rather than physical utilitarian devices. And I have been around the notability guidelines for more than 6 years, I know what we mean with sourcing and the like, and you are clearly mistaken. If you are so strongly assured you have the weight of guidelines behind you, then you should send the article to AFD to get consensus on that. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget "...media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; .." Spshu (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callsigns

I noticed you changed some callsigns on the O&O TV page to the base callsigns as opposed to their actual F.C.C.-issued callsign (e.g.: KCNC-TV is the legal call, not KCNC). The full legal callsign should always be displayed, not the base.Stereorock (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you demand that people address you with your full legal name, first middle and last name, every time they address you? But, you want to be addressed as Stereorock here, which is not your legal name. Why are you using that? WP:COMMONNAME is the key here. So, some how you are telling me you can not tell that the call signs refer to TV stations in a TV station article? Spshu (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue of BASE callsigns. For example, you changed WBZ-TV to WBZ. Well, to the F.C.C., WBZ is the radio station on 1030 kHz; WBZ-TV is the television station. 2 completely different things. WBZ is not the television station. When we list stations here, the articles go by their F.C.C.-issued callsign. Any name, positioner, etc. they may use is incidental. If we are going by listing the common name, why not put "ABC 6", "NBC 10", "Fox 25", etc. instead of an inaccurate callsign? That, by the way, is something I am against. The wikipedia reader can click on a callsign and see in the article whatever the name of the station may be. All stations with -FM suffixes and -TV suffixes, even if there is no base callsign (just the 3- or 4-letter callsign), are listed as the full calsign.Stereorock (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not the FCC, we do not report to the FCC and the nav box specifies it is about TV stations ("Owned-and-operated stations of the major television networks of the United States"), not broadcasting stations in general. Changing WGZ-TV to WGZ in a list of TV Stations is still WGZ-TV not WBZ-AM/FM radio station. We don't use ABC 6 and the like because you can have 2 ABC6 as there are multiple "ABC7", which one would get the nod for the main article? Since, these name can change with a change in networks, ABC7 is consider branding instead of their name.

Secondly, the dropping of the "TV", "LP" or "DT" is to make the Nav. box smaller thus easier to look through. This doesn't effect the article title. Spshu (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of DC Comics imprints

I've moved it back to the article namespace - the article has worth, as some of the imprints do lack general content, it just needs to be cleaned up a bit. Also, you originally moved the article into a userpage namespace, rather than a sandbox sub-page under your own user page; don't know if it was intentional, but it didn't seem like it. || Tako (bother me) || 21:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but consensus was against using the article. You should have spoken up during the discussion. You might want to look above how being at the noticeboards was used against me. I had original made a long post at the comicbook article but lost it an editing confict. Spshu (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was against merging all the imprint articles into that single article. But as Takuy has said, there is value for a list of imprint that incorporate some of the less notable ones, while leaving the notable ones as separate articles. This is a completely appropriate approach for dealing with a mix of notable and non-notable topics. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there wasn't consensus, four doesn't make a consensus (which general means 100%) from a group of 10. It was mostly a discussion on notability sources or talk of AfD, which I have been told the votes have with no reasoning behind them. If there was a consensus, then where are the votes about the individual article? And with Postdlf unwilling to state his case fully, the existance of this article seem to be part of the reason he refused removal of the block since this was the edit war that refers to previous happening. Spshu (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor sanctions?

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

In regards to the article Major film studio, I have attempted tell an IP editor that there isn't a conflict over Lionsgate, but the editor continues to revert ruining viewability of the full table and reinstating improper classificiation of some film units. I request page protection for the page, but was rebuffed being told to seek sanctions. So I am unsure where to go as the only sanction is article sanction, which I am not sure it fits. And I have an administrator that hold against me for even showing up at 3RR. What should I do? Spshu (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the confusion. The admin declining your protection request meant that you should try to have the IP address blocked or restricted for edit warring, using the word "sanctions" in a general way (definition #2), not the Wikipedia-specific meaning.

However, after reading the discussion on the article talk page, it's quite clear that both you and the anonymous editor are both convinced that your own position is correct and the other is wrong -- making this a content dispute, not a clear case of one editor behaving badly. I would not feel comfortable blocking the IP when it's clear they genuinely believe their position is correct, just as you do.

Instead, I've fully protected the page for one week, to allow you time to seek dispute resolution to resolve this issue. It's clear that simple discussion on the talk page isn't working, but something needs to happen -- as I suggested on the talk page, perhaps you could try WP:DRN first. —Darkwind (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I go that he was using it general way after the one ANI "sanction" option wouldn't work. Just want the correct one.

His position is the same as mine over the positions of LGE Corp. and LGE Inc.? So what do you see the content dispute is about then? He just will not register that the differences are only cosmetic re:LGEC/LGEI and he continues to add back other misclassification (Marvel Studios and Lucasfilms as genre labels being superheroes and sci-fi respectively). Spshu (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I filed the dispute. Spshu (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buena Vista school district

Thank you for writing that article! One thing is that things need to be written in past tense (you would write in present tense if you are describing the plot of a fictional book/movie/etc).

Anyway I decided to beef up the Inkster school district page. They closed too... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your opinion

Hi. You've participated in discussions on KCAL-TV. Can you offer your opinion about the inclusion of material in an article that's taking place in this consensus discussion, in which the reliability of that source is one of the issues that was raised (among others)? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pow!

You moved the article on the comic from Pow! to Pow! (comic) and created a disambiguation page at its title, but you have not fixed the large number of incoming links to the comic which now point to the dab page. Please either fix all those links, or consider reverting your move and coping with the company and the album in a hatnote on the comic's article. It's your responsibility to clean up after creating a dab page in this way - there's a note to say so which appears during the move operation. PamD 23:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Center

Hello, Spshu. You have new messages at Carniolus's talk page.
Message added 20:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sony Pictures Entertainment

Jeff Blake IS considered as one of the main key personnel in Sony Pictures. He is the executive vice chairman of the company. Read here Who are you to say that he is NOT?? 99.46.224.17 (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what if he is the vice chairman. Sony Pictures website (and the wikilink there to) nor your option doesn't make it so. Then why aren't any of the others listed? Spshu (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"So what if he is the vice chairman."?? Then why don't YOU make the list of the senior management team on the article? Read this too 99.46.224.17 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion for a proposed split of Iron Man: Rise of Technovore. Also a WP:3RR warning.

I've gone ahead and proposed that Iron Man: Rise of Technovore be split at Talk:Marvel Anime. Feel free to participate in the discussion. Also, the attempt to split seems to be entirely in good faith to me, and saying it isn't is quite rude to the person trying to split it. Keep in mind that it is normal for article content to be copied from one place in Wikipedia to another when things are split or merged, and that User:Raamin complied with the bare minimum requirements for copying content by listing the article it was copied from in the edit summary. Saying the information was "swiped" is inaccurate, as the copying of the information complied with Wikipedia guidelines. Also, please note WP:3RR, which states that it is against policy to revert an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. It looks like you reverted Iron Man: Rise of Technovore 4 times in the last 24 hours. Please don't edit war in that fashion. If you continue to do so, it is possible that you will be blocked from editing in the future. Calathan (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Iron Man: Rise of Technovore. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

Sorry, Bbb23, but it looks like you didn't bother to look at my defense at the ANI board. Can you, Bbb3, respond to Rammin over at Talk:Marvel_Anime#Proposed_split_of_Iron_Man:_Rise_of_Technovore that Ultimate Avengers 2 shouldn't exist and that I am working on Marvel Animated Features article in my user space and that what is happening with other articles isn't necessarily valid with others. But hay we would want to discussion any thing. Some times I think I can work it out with the other editor in vis via the edit summary and some times we have. And other ignore any discussion what so ever, so they can own the article. Spshu (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Cinemagic

Even if he didn't war that page. He was removing good information on Disney Cinemagic after I apologized for "stealing" his work. The page has been protected until Monday. TDFan2006 (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You apologized then bashed me on the talk page. I had it protected because you would not discuss it and just revert as you are the edit warring there. "Good information" as I pointed out on WP is source, which none of which you added was source. The onus is on the person that adds the information. Also, why would Toon Disney, usually a "basic" cable channel be the successor to a premium channel? Spshu (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinewood derby

Hello, I'm Evrik. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Pinewood derby because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You may want to discuss such a major change first. --evrik ^(talk) 19:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Playhouse Disney may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.[reply]

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| owner = [[Disney Channel]]) ([[Disney Channels Worldwide]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Republic Bancorp

There is an IP address who wants to talk about Citizens Republic Bancorp in the present tense even though the corporate entity no longer exists. Please monitor the article. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. DiverScout (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HIT Entertainment

Hi Spshu, could you take another look at this edit of yours. There are a couple of grammatical issues and I don't want to take a stab at fixing it if I guess incorrectly. The first issue is "the Jim Henson Productions". That sounds odd. The second is "On April 1, 2004, the company and The Jim Henson Company..." I assume the first company is HiT? Thanks, not trying to be a smartass, just unsure of what you were getting at. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a bit odd on "the Jim Henson Productions". I figured that some one would get upset that the "the" wasn't there. Yes, the first company is HiT, WP MOS denies the standard capitalization when indicating the subject of the article. Just "HiT" got a little repetitive. Spshu (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

frisbee

Frisbee (TV channel) is worthy of note, is one of the seven major channels for children italian television (Source: Auditel Nielsen TAM); then Switchover Media no longer exists but was purchased and incorporated in Discovery Italia Srl.--79.9.17.139 (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed this and the do not violate the non-free image policy. Further claims of violating the policy at that page will be consider edit warring. Spshu (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

I've reworked the list so it shows only the premiere dates instead of the date ranges, since the end dates are difficult to ascertain - one would have to page through the very scarce programming schedules. You can copy or move over the Jetix-related entries. I'm not sure if there's an automatic way of reorganizing the references but let me know if you need help with that. Thanks. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to exclude some Jetix-related series that aren't original to Jetix but were brought over, like the Nascar Racers, so feel free to regroup those into acquired programming or whatever makes the most sense. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits related to the Buena Vista School District

Hi! I apologize that I haven't had a chance to find your edit, but I would like to discuss these edits here.

1. Please do not remove a website just because "website will most likely be shut down at some point" - Please don't do that. By removing the old website URL people who are not computer literate won't be able to find out where the old website was. Why is this important? Because we want people to be able to easily access the saved copies of the old websites.

The Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org saves copies of old websites. http://www.bvsd.k12.mi.us/ is now dead. However... http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bvsd.k12.mi.us/ is very much accessible and people can learn about the old district by going through its webpages from the past. If you remove the old URL people may not know where the old website was. In this revision I added the links to the website archives.

2. Re: "image doesn't prove location just mailing address"

The edit was well meaning but it removed the citation. The image at http://www.bvsd.k12.mi.us/images/headers/1/header_19269963_c1353988139.jpg was the header of the website and it was stating the physical location address (which happens to be the mailing address).

Unfortunately, specifically that image cannot be viewed on the wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bvsd.k12.mi.us/images/headers/1/header_19269963_c1353988139.jpg is blocked for some reason WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. This isn't our or my responsibility. If you want to link to the Wayback Machine then link via the Wayback Machine, don't come here and lecture me. Linking to the old website don't do them any good when they expect to click on them that they work.

2. No, the image citation places it in Saginaw ("705 N. Towerline Road, Saginaw, MI 48601") NOT Buena Vista Charter Township, the information it was suppose to be supporting. It is a general mistake that the mailing address is the physical location address. It just is the post office that deliveries the mail there as the GNIS FAQ 27 indicates: "Therefore, the ZIP Code boundary in no way indicates a legal “footprint” of a named community, is not official for purposes other than delivering mail, and changes periodically." So there for is NOT considered a reliable source for locations. Spshu (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's & Burger King templates

Hello, I wish to discuss your recent edits to these two templates. The reason those links are along the top of the templates is because they are the core articles for the subject. Your removal of them and substitution as section titles with less than descriptive titles makes it harder for people to understand what the link to. That is why I reverted your changes. If you feel that there is a substation reason why these changes should be made, please discuss it on the talk page per bold, revert and discuss.

Also, please do place allegations of unsubstantiated misuse of tools in your edit summaries, it goes against one of our central tenants of assuming good faith ---Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are duplicate of the group titles. If some one can not understand as the section titles then they will not understand them in the "above" section. So, some how they are no longer about Burger King or McDonald. Basic common sense and is routinely used when possible on all navboxes.

The [Wikipedia:Twinkle|Twinkle]] as it states is for: "...to help them deal with acts of vandalism. It provides users with three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions, user warnings and welcomes, maintenance tags, semi-automatic reporting of vandals,.." When an editor gives no reason for a reversion (" RV - Undo." at McD and BK) then it is assume to be vandalism, since revisions were not vandalism. In fact, this is not an "allegations of unsubstantiated misuse of tools" as WP:TWINKLEABUSE clearly states that "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." You did not use "an appropriate edit summary". It is you who is not assuming good faith and tagged me as a vandal. You clearly abused Twinkle and now richly attack me for not assuming good faith.

Twinkle edits on these two templates will be reversed due to your abuse of it. YOu will need to request the changes on the talk pages per bold, revert and discuss.

At this point tell me why I should not report you for edit warring, Twinkle abuse, failure to ASF, gaming the system by using ASF to attack me? Spshu (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary on the first revert was less than spectacular, and that is my fault. However, if you note that my second revert (here) added a descriptive reason why I reverted your edits coupled with my attempt to engaged you on this talk page. So your third revert of the page claiming abuse of tools is a little less convincing, without providing a single reason why your edits are preferable anywhere. I would ask you to please revert your changes and engage me on the talk page.

Also, please stop threatening to report me for one mistake when you have been warned or blocked several times for your behaviors regarding edit wars, while I have never once even come close to the "crimes" you accuse me of. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave a reason here in the [first paragraph of my previous post. To now claim that I did not provide ".. a single reason why your edits are preferable anywhere." is false.

Bringing up different warning or blocks about different issues isn't a defense and isn't allowed. Doing so is not acting in good faith: "When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind." I gave you an opportunity to explain yourself not a threat to defuse the situation instead of going down the reporting road. Second, I showed very clearly that you did abuse Twinkle by not giving a reason thus assuming I was a vandal despite a good faith edit thus not showing good faith, so it is beyond close. It is a fact whether you like it or not. Another, it is not one mistake as you claim, you abused TW twice on BK & McD templates and the fact that wasn't vandalism is not assuming good faith. Spshu (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I said was RV - Undo which means ReVert - undo. Undoing something is not assigning the tag of vandalism. If I had used the Rollback - Vandal switch, you could say I accused you of vandalism. Using the undo is simply undoing an edit. Again, using an non-descriptive edit summary is a mistake, not an abuse. Please stop parsing my edit summaries as an attempt to justify your attempts to dismiss my problems with your edits.

Finally, I am not using your history as a defense - I was pointing out that you have a history of edit warring, 3R violations and blocks as such and that your threatening me with them is ironic. You did come close to violating WP:Edit warring guidelines on these edits and you did ignore the primary idea behind WP:BRD when you failed to restore your edits to a period before where they were disputed. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically since they don't give a reason as RV - Undo is no different than the standard TW vandal message as a reason was not given just what you did. ("If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary.") So, yes, I can say you accused me of vandalism. BRD doesn't apply to vandalism which you accused me of. As per BRD: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." Nor does WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism)."

So, I could remove or archive my talk page to hide the 3RR reports like your 35 AN visits. It isn't in good faith to bring it up as it makes the assumption that I am here to hurt the project. So I don't us roll over when some editor that just wants to have it their way. Some editor will game the 3RR rules and just revert and not show up for discussions until force at the point of 3RR to discussion. No, bring up blocks and warnings is not ironic is an attempt at cowing me to give in to their opinion like I am some lesser editor because I run into the wrong editors forcing issues to 3RR. Spshu (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to reply to you in a rebuttal of your last post, but in reading your posts I feel that discussing the issue would be unproductive. Not because I feel that I'm right and you're wrong or visa versa, but because I feel that there is no point beyond this. I have term papers I have to write, not because I decide not to engage you. As you may have noticed, my editing has been minimal for the last few weeks. College calls, Happy editing. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disk Wars

I will admit that I too did not check the source links beforehand over at the Disk Wars page. However as the person citing that some of the info is unsourced, at least check if all of the source links have relevant info that can connect to the page. The T.M Revolution link also sources the kids and voice actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.134.219 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't understand why you remove my contribution. I checked my sources and watched the show. So, I think I knows a thing or two about it too. Everybody is allowed to contribute to Wikipedia as long they don't make themselves nuisance. My english might not be 100% correct (because it's not my mother language) but I don't see anything wrong with adding a description in the character section about Captain America and Wasp. Have a nice day. comment add by 109.133.130.6 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have no source and it make no sense what so ever. " He shows himself to be a smart-mouth and a pefectionnist (after Peter Parker and Peper, a slavedrive)" What? That is total nonsense. What you have added is a "nuisance". Nuisance is adding information with out a source. They also have their own article. Also, you didn't add info on Captain America and Wasp it was about Ironman and Thor. Spshu (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. well, that strange because I did add info about Captain America and Wasp too. I understand that someone has to play the "manager", otherwise this article will be chaotic and it's great that this article receive attention. But there is not a wirtten source for everything. Sometimes the "original material" is much more important because everything written is already an interpretation. In archeology, for example, if your sources say that the artifact is blue, but you have it in front of you and see it's red. What should you trust : the sources or your eyes ? In this case, Marvel Disk Wars : The avengers just starts being brodcast in Japan and isn't completely translate yet. It is normal there is not many references avaible. There should be a way to cite the episodes as sources and they should be seen that way too, at least for the characters developpement and the summaries. It's a little like analysing a movie. If you do the work correctly, you will watch it and not only referred yourself on what was written. You don't need to be aggressive about it. If people post a comment, it is to open a dialogue and learn more. As I was pointing out earlier, my english is not perfect. So, I could have failed to explain myself correctly. I apologise for being a nuisance then. But there should be a way to use the serie itself as a source. Since you know a lot about wikipedia, I will be interested to know if it is possible. Thank you for reading and taking interest in Marvel disk wars : the avengers. comment by 109.133.130.6 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closure

Please read WP:NAC and WP:NACD. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit at DXD AU before you closed the discussion (& have sense reverse it). Secondly, you didn't read NAC which states: "Contrary to popular belief, especially among newer editors, discussions are not a vote. Administrators use rough consensus to determine the outcome." Since, the opposition was opinion based not policy base, you should have waited for an administrator, relisted, or closed for deletion. Consensus is not a vote, but that is what you did. But most administrator think that way too. DXD AU doesn't even met Notability as it base on 1 outside source. Spshu (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean in that first sentence, as I closed the discussion many hours ago. As for the result, I could not imagine any administrator coming to any other conclusion than a keep outcome in that case, so the consensus was clearly uncontroversial in my view. That last sentence and indeed the original nomination itself suggest that you haven't read Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability - if so, I would strongly recommend doing so. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I though you were calling me out on my reversion of your removal of the AfD notice at DXD.au as I came from an unclosed AfD discussion then went back to find it closed. That page must not have cleared from my cache.

Consensus needs to be based on policy/guidelines at AfD, so votes not based on policy/guidelines which where basically all the keep votes. Keep votes that even indicated that it was one item: "...is an international franchise...", "An internationally successful franchise". "valid channels" was one invalid reason. Just because an item exists doesn't automatic grant it a WP article. etc. etc.

I never suggest Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, it is sourcing which was point out by myself to counter Nate. Considering I have done the research on the DXD just to build a new list of DXDs, I should now whether or not there is enough sources to make them notable. As I point out at the AfD may the Canadian version may be notable but not more than a paragraph or two.

It is disturbing that you have show that you have not even read the AfD then other than the votes. Spshu (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion seems bizarre to me. Wasn't one of the pages you nominated for deletion that very list you just mentioned? (And yes, you adding back the notice was indeed what I meant, but a cache taking that long to update would seem quite strange to me.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Votes have to give a valid reason for their vote to count, really simple. The list was original added to the main DXD article (so it would cover all versions) then some one reverted it. Figure no sense in edit warring over it when return it to user space than add it back latter. Spshu (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did read the entire discussion before closing it (and I don't appreciate your accusation to the contrary). As far as I can tell, you did not even address what was probably the strongest counterargument made on that page - that the single article (or was it two, since you later mentioned a programming list?) you proposed would become extremely large if all of the information from the other articles was added to it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well indicating that I should read Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability when I indicate that sourcing/notability and duplication/forking is the problem for the nation/market articles doesn't match up with reading the AfD discussion. The information was duplicated in each article ie. content forking showing same programs after same programs, so no the article would not be extremely large. Look at this version of DXD and tell me that it would be extremely large (if I read the line number right it went down by six lines). The list would be for programming that already exists that is the bulk of the version information. Secondly, you closed it before I could reply to Forbesy 777 who brought it up in a post today at 1:54 PM while you closed at 2:02 PM. But basically it was address to begin with as the reason given was forking. Rolling up duplicated articles would reduce total used space on the server. Spshu (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue here is that you seem not to have noticed (correct me if I'm wrong here) that the lists are significantly different between the articles. Simply merging them would just not be possible. (I will admit, though, that I did not notice the date on that comment you mention - had I noticed it I might have held off closing the discussion a little longer.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources at a few of them.... Australia sources indicate about 11 programs while listing 21. Canada's has current shows source with 22 listed plus the former programs unlisted. The rest of the article have unsourced programming. So what is listed has to do more with person memory than sourcing. Spshu (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lists have problems with sourcing - but the thing is, so does pretty much every "List of programs broadcast by" page I've seen on Wikipedia. I'd say the thing to focus on in that regard is to add sources (including archived sources for former programs) instead of removing what may be entire lists. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, a core show which would show on all DXD channels should be listed and sourced on 13 different articles instead of one article. With sections for market specific program, wow, easier to look at see what was a core program versus a localized show. This is a voluntary effort, not a make more work for the editor actually doing the work -- me. Jetix's programming list got so bad that an administrator dumped all the information there and restarted from scratch. And that is more fragmented than DXD as Jetix Europe was a partly public corporation. Spshu (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have proposed that instead, then. I'm done here. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Your recent editing history at Jetix shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing the same thing at Marvel Comics

You have begun an edit-war at Marvel Comics, going so far as to gratuitously label an edit you disagree with as "vandalism." It clearly was not, and was adhering to longstanding WPC practices. Before making a unilateral, undiscussed, over-the-top change affecting hundreds of articles, DISCUSS it, please, or I will ask an admin to intervene. WP:BRD, like it says above. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except both of you never looking into the matter. The previous was already discussed and the editor continued against what he agreed to on the talk page. Spshu (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve (or Steven) Rogers, not Steven Grant Rogers

Please actually read what a citation links to before assuming you are right and undoing a valid edit. Check out the talk page for List of Avengers members. 86.184.121.147 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USDTV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifetime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD (Australia)

Please stop reverting my edits. There are sources for the programming. There are many such as the Foxtel TV guide and the website. At least look on the TV guide for proof. 66.87.81.34 (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop adding edits that have no reliable sources or primary sources. Spshu (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The programs are sourced. Look at the tv guide to prove that they air. That is what Forbesy 777 did to the programs. The editor checked the TV guide and the website. Please stop reverting my edits. 66.87.81.34 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not PROPERLY SOURCED. TV Guides are not WP reliable sources. Stop reverting my edits and read my explanations. Spshu (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you hate Disney XD according to this Afd. Please stop reverting my edits. If the Tv guide says the show, then that means it airs. 66.87.81.34 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think that AfD has any thing to do with hate Disney? Really? Did you dig up all the Disney article that I revamp from being nearly unsourced? Nope, because the AfD was all that you could come up with. What is in the TV Guide can preempted, so no that doesn't mean that they air nor any adding any references. Spshu (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DisneyToon page abbreviations

Abbreviations can be confusing for readers (and until your edit there was no reference as to what they meant) that is why I initially spelled them out. It was for clarity. I still think that someday the abbreviations should be removed and everything spelled out.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviations were there previous to your edit. Abbreviations are so company (since there were references to another company), Disney Consumer Products, and DisneyToon Studios are not used repetitively. Spshu (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the history, that's true, the abbr. meanings were already there. Sorry that I didn't notice. Although I don't think that spelling them out is necessarily repetitive. But I digress.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 7D cast sources

Hi, I reverted the cast and crew list references for The 7D to point to the Disney press release on April 3, as that is the earliest of the articles to name the cast members for the show. The Animation World article was posted April 25 and rewords the press release. Similarly, Broadway World uses the press release information. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, per WP:PRIMARY, the third party sources should be used. I didn't add the Broadway World source as I didn't need it as other sources included the information source from that article. You are however removing, Entertainment Weekly, which I have tagged as a notability source as it is a major entertainment magazine/news source. Spshu (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is reliable per WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY, there are no interpretation issues that would require that to have a secondary source. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what WP:PRIMARY states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources..." Articles are not suppose to rely on primary sourced information, better to save it for information that isn't available via other sources, like what role Lord Starchbottom fills. Spshu (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the secondary source makes sense. It's just that McLean was paraphrasing the primary source, yet presenting it as first-hand knowledge, especially the listing of what shows the cast have previously been noted for, although he adds his own spin on the wording such as "haplessly plot to dethrone the queen" instead of "haplessly plot to overthrow the kingdom". I wanted to ensure that there was knowledge of the press release which prompted the secondary sources. I agree to keep Lord Starchbottom's description until the secondary sources reference it. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I understand that this network was rebranded (FYI), but since the owner is the same and the Bio. page is short, there is no need for a new page. For examples of this Wikipedia tradition in play for recent rebrandings, see: CBS Sports Network, Destination America, Esquire Network, Fox Sports 2, TruTV, Velocity, and many others... -- Chris1294 July 8, 2014‎ 16:37

But Bio will still/may exist over in other countries. For other similar rebranding with no change in ownership there are two different articles:

Jetix → Disney XD, Disney Channels
Jetix Play → Playhouse Disney, Disney XD +1
Playhouse Disney → Disney Junior
Toon Disney → Disney XD, Disney Cinemagic

Second, "FYI," is incorrectly picking up the channel's name from the stylized logo. Spshu (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channels Worldwide

I think you misunderstood my edit. Per WP:COLOUR, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information." Also per the same section, the background colour chosen made it very difficult to read.

There are several different ways todo background colour, your way () is not the preferred way for tables. 1)  is obsolete HTML, but this is just minor 2) look for "bgcolor="gray" in the article's history. That is the best way for tables. Bgwhite (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

??? How else would I show BSkyB runs a license Sky Movies Disney and show that there was previous a Disney run Disney Cinemagic and that Disney runs all other Disney Channels in the UK? bgcolor is not a container tag like the font tag is. Spshu (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have marked all Disney channels as being run by licensee since you just stripped out the color. Look if you intent to remove the color then properly replace the color. Spshu (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about what show is or isn't Disney, it is only about Accessibility guidelines. The very dark grey made it hard for people to read. It made it impossible for screen readers (aka the blind) to know the information.

There MUST be some other way to identify the information besides colour.
The way you added colour was done wrong.
If you want to change the color, do it right and you pick the colour. I've been yelled at one too many times when just changing colour. People scream alot louder when changing colour over just removing it.

Bgwhite (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shows? What are you talking about?

You are enforcing accessibility guidelines to the point of destroying the content/information. No this is about you mucking the content up to making the information unintelligible as much as you claim the coloring does. You made it look like BSkyB owns all the UK channels not just the one it should show. That makes in unintelligible.

I just point out that if you think 1,2,3 you don't yank the color with out #1. "...identify the information besides colour". Based on the information need using font tag is the only container tag available -- do you comprehend? I used the "bgcolor="gray" as I Designed the table, since not all items in a table cell necessarily needed Listen to your own points. You did not do #1 when you removed the color. Thus you show that you are an !&()_1()7 and should be yelled at. You added back a bunch of stuff that was incorrect too. You when and removed the color like that was not acceptable either, so why are you bringing up #3? With your edit, the screen readers would have pick it up as the same jumble mess as what you claim is a problem!!!!! Spshu (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, stop shouting and yelling. I won't participate in any discussion with that kind of crap. It is also obvious you haven't read WP:COLOUR. It is hard to have a discussion when doesn't read and only vents because of frustration or ignorance.

As I said earlier, "background colour chosen made it very difficult to read." As many people would be unable to read the information because of the very dark background, I removed the background. If a group of people are unable to read content because of a design consideration, the design consideration goes.
I'm not removing anything. I have told you that you can add back the colour. You can choose your colour based on WP:COLOUR... Best if not red, green or dark. Pastels tend to work best. WP:COLOUR also contains a link to Help:Using colours.
Just make sure something else tells the info besides the color. The most common way is to use symbols, such as star or cross. From WP:COLOUR, "Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information."
 is not used anywhere on Wikipedia. The article contained two ways to do colour. One for colouring the entire row. One for colouring just one cell. See Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters for help. The help page uses tags, but "bgcolor="gray" can be substituted.

Bgwhite (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, yelling is all CAPS. Bold is to stress with out yelling. So, stop repeatedly accusing me of doing something that I did not do. No, I have read WP:COLOUR, once again false accusations. The venting of frustration is because you are not paying attention to the discussion. You are the cause!!! Because you are responding in ignorance of what I have said. Since your responses don't correspond to what I said. Thus you are acting in ignorance of the discussion. Because I go to make the correction you want but you mess up the article, since you didn't even follow your own direction as pointed out in the previous post.

You state "... I removed the background." in 1. then 2. "I'm not removing anything." So you did now you attempt to claim that you didn't. But you want 3 but remove the background info that would have made it easier for me to do so.

So now that you have ignored, attacked and lied to me. Go away. You are banned from my talk page. Spshu (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thus we have the classic internet moronic troll syndrome.... Instead of the topic, one results to name calling and get lost in anger. "Thus you show that you are an !&()_1()7 and should be yelled at. ". (emphisis yours) You are saying you are yelling by your own admission. Your are name calling by your own admission. The points you brought up are answered in WP:COLOUR and in my retort. You may have read WP:COLOUR, but you didn't read it. You selectively quote, I said, I didn't remove anything because you can add it back. I also said people cannot' see the text as is.

It is your choice to yell, scream and "ban". Big deal. I could care less. In the end, you are the one hurting the article as you don't want to follow accessibility guidelines and the five pillars of Wikipedia. You are the one not adding back in the color correctly. I've shown you where the info is found to add color back in. You choice.... Good bye. Bgwhite (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jetix and Toon Disney programming

Hi, it looks like someone's adding Jetix programs again for List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney. I remember they were spun off to the other article, but should they be listed in both places? -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Your recent editing history at Jetix shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AlanS (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jetix is shut down. Can't you see that the IP editor is adding false information? The information is unsourced and thus WP:PROVEIT. I have requested page protection if you bothered to check. So pay attention to what is going on instead slapping some with a false warning for trying to stop a vandal. Spshu (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the IP editor in question has been blocked now. I've declined the protection request for that reason, but if it starts up again submit another request and it'll likely get approved.--Slon02 (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2601:2:5780:1CB:1C50:9DAE:D1AA:92E8 was blocked, however 82.152.187.189 is not. Spshu (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xploration whatever

I haven't been following it lately since I've been trying to stay away from Ttll's disputes (they've been arguing over what to call an unaired show on Vortexx for the last month, whether unaired or other; I say unaired, they want other, I'm not going to get blocked for that so I withdrew). I personally implored for more sources when I created the RD for Xploration, but they're usually deaf ear notes. Nate • (chatter) 01:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney XD TV channels

Regarding List of Disney XD TV channels, you didn't answer my question, how are you ordering the table? Also, could you please be more specific about what sourced information I removed? I am still hoping to improve the list. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay.

The table is sortable. I started the table with the Jetix and Toon Disney tables, so the default is date of first channel change over.

The MAVISE database treats the time shift and HD as channels not feeds (not sure than what is the diff) which you indicated that you remove some HD channels. Some times I used a higher level in the database were you might have to drill down for that info. Also, the fact that in Canada it replace a planned channel Family Extreme and is under the control of a Trust. DHX has agreed to buy, but regulators haven't approve it yet. The Russian IPTV channel was missing. Spshu (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 21 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Disney Channels Worldwide page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KBJR-TV

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at KBJR-TV. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. There is a certain style and format that the majority of TV station articles use, particularly in regards to the infobox and presence of digital subchannels. Could you please STOP trying to force your practices under the guise of "cleanup"? ViperSnake151 Talk 15:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about you STOP trying to force your practices under the guise:

of claiming that I " assume ownership of articles".
that it is the practice of all TV station article use
It is clean up, but you didn't bother to look that they returned: Newscast titles, Station slogans, News team (unnotables) - all unsourced. You even removed the DT2 image.

Also, you are using (small) which isn't to be used in infoboxes as the text is already adjusts it to small (thus making even smaller) as I understand it.

And really their isn't any style or format for the subchannel and affiliation fields in the info boxes as suggested as they are misleading. So, to format those differently so as to take over for the digital subchannel table isn't a bad thing. Spshu (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major film studio

The "group" you keep reverting it back to is at best just a paper-only division within SPE covering Columbia and maybe TriStar, and is NOT clearly referenced as the actual "parent" of ANY studio (much less Columbia). SPE is well-known as the immediate corporate parent of *ALL* of Sony's studio arms (including the lesser ones), and is well-documented as such (until late 2013 Columbia's logo used the tagline "A Sony Pictures Entertainment Company"; then it was shortened to "A Sony Company" like most of the others). SPE is the closest equivalent in Sony's corporate structure of most of the others listed in the "Studio Parent" column; the one most like CTMPG is Paramount Motion Pictures Group, but then there's not many alternatives in "new" Viacom's corporate structure between the parent & Paramount proper (especially after CBS got the TV side -- yes I know this is about films, but all the major studios except Paramount also shoot TV shows on their lots). Maybe YOU need to reconsider... --RBBrittain (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, FYI (TV network)

Your article, FYI (TV network) has been marked for speedy deletion because it covers a topic on which we already have a page – Fyi (TV network).

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read that the article are up for merger discussion? It should be clear that it should not be up for speedy deletion as it is at a stage beyond that. --Spshu (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xploration Nation had changed it's name to Xploration Station see below!

I notice your one of the editors who won't give up the name Xploration Nation? I am begging you to correct this mistake and Fix the page. The 2 hour block for STEM Shows are called "Xploration Station". I work for Steve Rotfeld Productions. We just updated our website this week with all new information and new press links. You can easily see the Block is called Xploration Station and all the links refer you to the Xploration Social media sites. www.rotfeldproductions.com. My Boss is all upset that Wikipedia is having so much difficulty fixing this mistake. We changed the name of the block almost 4 months ago.

Mjay931979 (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)mjay931979[reply]

It was based on the sources that we have, one of which was a Rotfeld Production Press Release, which we should not be using to begin with. I did have Xploration Station as working title, but other editors chose to remove. We need legit news coverage and I can not say that Cynopsis is one. Realscreen might be as I have used one of their affiliate sites, but that doesn't out weight the other two sources (as point out one is Rotfeld's PR) and seems to be based on an Youtube video, which isn't a WP valid source. Well I wasn't the one that went out prematurely with announcements that it was "Nation" that came from your company. And when talking with other editor that assume "Station" was correct, there was nothing on the Rotfeld Production site. We have to go with what the source say. --Spshu (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand we only recently updated the site as of this week actually. I'm not saying Nation wasn't the name for a long time, we were selling it as Nation, but we found there was a problem with using the name Xploration Nation and we had to change it to Xploration Station. What would you consider a real source if none of what I suggested works? Links to social media sites? Our website is now updated and Xploration Station has it't own page. The press release you were using was from last year and at the time it was Xploration Nation, but the block is premiering the week of September 8th. There will be a lot more press in the coming weeks. If any of these work let me know. Mjay931979 (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)mjay931979[reply]

POW Entertainment

Hey, thanks for the comments. Actually, I've found more searches relating to the public company, than the private LLC, on sites such as BusinessWeek. In any event, to have the LLC in the infobox and suggest the LLC is publicly traded is incorrect. --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the article is just going to be about its trading stock and who owns the stock then? The intro paragraph indicated the difference between the Inc. and the LLC. Plus your original edit made the Inc. parent of the Inc. The Inc. exist just to allow the business, the LLC, to be traded on the stock market as most state usually have a 50 member limit for the LLC. Spshu (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WIBW-TV

Hi Spshu, I have a question for you. Is there a reason why you removed the "News team" from WIBW-TV? All, if not most, news articles have the news team on there. This one had a source to back it up. The "Former staff" I could see being removed, especially if they don't have a reference. I'm just curious as to why they were removed. I believe they should stay because 1. I think it is good information to have on here and 2. it had a source. Unless there was discussion someplace on Wikipedia that I wasn't aware about, then it should be discussed on the Talk page. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan^Talk 22:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed multiple times at WP:TVS including Staff List redux. What other article have or do not have is not relevant that just might mean that editor that know of the discussions banning this extraneous information have not visited the page or have been reverted like you have improperly done. Primary source is not sufficient for inclusion in an article. Spshu (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xploration Animal Science and Animal Science are related.

Hi, I added the sources back that show that Xploration Animal Science and Animal Science are related. The Steve Rotfield page says that Xploration Animal Science is an Emmy-nominated show, but the news articles show that Animal Science is the one that received the nominations. Anyway I threw in a press kit link for season 1 for the Xploration Animal Science version to confirm the number of episodes and the start date. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kind figure that but the press kit did not prove that and the website is kind weak with only the Emmy-nomination. --Spshu (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Animal Science article is pretty weak as is anyway, barely a stub, and just the Emmy nom for information, but I agree their production website needs improvement. It isn't clear how many episodes were produced for season 1 (seems like 12). The path website says 52 for season 2. Who knows if they will reuse episodes. Heck, those shows (and the Phillippe Cousteau one) can probably merge into Xploration Station article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of WMC-TV

Hello, I'm Trevorbirchett. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Do not leave vandalism notice for your edit warring. Spshu (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at WMC-TV shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

I know you warned the other user, but it is only fair to warn you as well because you reverted just as many edits as they have. Corkythehornetfan^Question? 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, he reverted 4 times to my 3 reverts and thus numerically has violated 3RR. Secondly, he never engaged in discussion started on his talk page and acknowledged I was right in his edit summary in making a reversal. Then attempted to label it as vandalism. Do not post false warnings. Spshu (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello. I know I didn't agree with you in the past about removing news stations staff members, but I have recently decided to agree, and that it makes much more since. So with that being said, I've started to remove non-notable staff members (per WP:LISTPEOPLE) from the articles as well as unsourced titles/slogans. Right now, I have a user (User:Jamesbondfan) that keeps reverting my edits without a valid reason. I had left a message on his talk page today explaining why and a quote from User:Aoidh from the WIBW-TV talk page. I don't want to get in an edit war with this user, so I'm reaching out to you who is doing the same thing... removing non-notable staff. You know much more than I do about these kind of things and could probably explain it better than I could. As of right now (14:05 Central), Jamesbondfan has not replied back to me, just reverted edits. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 19:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request page protection on the articles in question that should halt his reversions. I have done so for 4 articles: WZVN-TV, WINK-TV, WBBH-TV, WFTX-TV. If you know of any more add them to the list (unless the administrator has acted then file another request). --Spshu (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Blade The Series

Warner Bros. owns New Line Television the producer of that show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.23.43 (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, that doesn't change history like you seem to be doing claim Disney and WB as distributors of various series they original had nothing to do with. --Spshu (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Line Televion produces the series so its has be in the Cetegory Television series by Warner Bros. Television — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.23.43 (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wink tv

regarding dario melendez there is a citation from the same place florida news journal blog and i'll even add the wisconsin/milwaukee journal centinal and his sacred heart profile to prove it

September 2014

Your recent editing history at Duchy of Cornwall shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is under discussion if you bother to look. Another issue was claim to have been bought to talk but wasn't there for it was an unexplained edit. But you didn't look thus are completely the fool for posting this. Please actually pay attention to BRD before giving a warning that is completely false. Spshu (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well that tells me how much good faith you are bringing to the discussion! DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Madison Films

Your edits to this article claim a notability issue but in neither case do you express why you believe it fails. Please illuminate me. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only one major source in the article is about the company, Nelson Madison Films or its subsidiary, Variety. Most source in the article is about the movies they make or distribute. Spshu (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As should be expected. Any article about any company would need to go into reasonable detail about what the company does/provides; indeed, it would fail notability standards without it. This is especially the case when the vast majority of a company's work is in providing services to others, such as a distributor of independent motion pictures.

That having been said, I may get some input as to whether the article should be named for the subsidiary ... ;) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: question posed. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Rights isn't' notable on its own either it only has one notable source too (Variety), the same as Nelson Madison Films. In effect, you are attempt to inherit the notability of the films that Nelson Madison Films makes and those that Indie Rights distributes. Just which Indie Rights as the name of the article has not change the status of the article as failing notability standards. Spshu (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Obviously, I disagree and, if only barely, I'm not the only one. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 18:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I may be so bold as to offer a couple of suggestions for future use:

Cleanup guidelines remind us to "Avoid 'drive-by' tagging: tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or, for simpler problems, a remark using the reason parameter ..." Your notation "src. issues on top of Notability" is hardly indicative of a "simpler" problem.
Your reason the second time you added {{notability}}: "still the company itself is not notable". You repeat this assessment above. This leaves me with the impression that you would prefer the article to be deleted rather than improved. While notability guidelines require a subject to have received "significant independent coverage or recognition," they do not enumerate what constitutes "significant", and also point out that notability "requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist". Two write-ups in Variety, while evidently insufficient for you, still argue that the article should be improved; an effort I continue in good faith as I get to it.

Meantime, please consider archiving your talk page. If I click the wrong link and get the whole page (rather than this one section), it takes forever to load up and even longer to attempt editing. :D —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No you may not be bold, since this seems to a code word for you not show good faith. How about you don't drive by remove of said tag and be aware correctly that significant sources are need per notability, not just lots of sources. If I wanted to delete it, the article would be at AfD, would it not? The point of the tag is to allow some one to improve it, excuse me for allowing you to do so. So that assumption is false, to the point of you edit warring about it. If you want to edit war about it then I will take it to AfD since you don't care about WP and notability standards.

"significant independent coverage or recognition," they do not enumerate what constitutes "significant", and also point out that notability "requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." But the "This page in a nutshell: " box at the top indicates ".. sufficiently significant attention by the world at large.." Also, WP:AUD indicates: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." I am not sure why AUD doesn't follow GNG's multiple publication rule.

RE: Variety's 2 articles about NM Film and Indie Rights (together) fail at WP:GNG as: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So, it is "insufficient" for WP not just me. Spshu (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag once per its guidelines, given your unarticulated reasons therefor and its drive-by (no discussion initiated, per the template page) inclusion. I removed the tag the second time after making improvements to the article and per the instructions accompanying the template. This does not constitute an "edit war" per WP:3RR, which you desperately need to read; in fact—and, remember, you brought it up—I have never been accused of edit warring; you, on the other hand, have been advised if not actually warned about edit-warring on at least 13 occasions (assuming all are intact on this talk page) and blocked therefor at least once.

You quote "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary" from WP:AUD, then attempt to dispatch it under a false construct: while "[m]ultiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", it confirms, not contradicts, the presence of "at least one regional, national, or international source"—namely, Variety. In addition, your assessment of the nutshell "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large" does not and should not preclude Variety even were it the sole source.

Your predilection toward contradiction (as opposed to argument, which is intended to be constructive) proves a general unwillingness toward collaboration within the encyclopedia, as evidenced by the dozens of editors who've taken you to task therefor. If you wish to take the article to WP:AfD then please, by all means, do so; it will prove conclusively and finally that you are incorrect, especially given the ongoing improvements, which you appear incapable of suggesting, never mind making. As for discussion, this isn't one; what it is, is over. Happy editing! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

given that the nom withdrew the afd , keeping the notability tag on the article does not seem reasonable. I see there are good faith efforts to improve the article. The proper course for you to take if you think the work being done is insufficient is to give it a reasonable chance for improvement , and if you still really doubt notability, renominate the article after a few months--not right now. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One, the nominator did not withdrawal the AfD because I could be seen as one of the nominators as my tagging it triggered the AfD by the nominator, ATinySliver. Second, he did not withdraw the nomination but drew the conclusion that results was keep: ".. I'd keep as nom". Also, I did not withdrawal the AfD request. Consensus was not reached in numbers see examples of 5 editors not considered consensus forcing another discussion of weak consensus which drew 7 or so discussing editors. I was the only editor indicating policy supporting my position which should be taken into account per Wikipedia:Consensus TD. As, I understand it if no consensus is reached than the pre-bold status hold in this case with the notability tag. I never intended for it to go to AfD just give notice so significant source could be found to make it notable and not go adding info then having some else nominating it for AfD and losing all that work.

Please check his edit as ATinySliver does not act in good faith. Note his barely veiled personal attacks: last paragraph, last paragraph - against how much I contribution or don't, gloating, still a poor attempt at gloating while knowing outright that the previous post was gloating

Note too that ATinySilver was canvassing support in the AfD in exchange for favors: "You up to a favor" at User_talk:Nikkimaria, User_talk:Ian_Rose and User_talk:Figureskatingfan. While none complied, an administrator should be in a better place to indicated such actions are problematic. Spshu (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive editing of One Magnificent Morning

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. Thank you.

I've protected the page for a week in lieu of blocking both of you. Please use the article's talk page and resolving the dispute before making any other reverts. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros.

Stop adding dated information on the active production deals section of the Warner Bros. Pictures page. If you keep adding dated and false info on that page, I will assume that you are a vandal and I will notify an administrator. (StephenCezar15 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The iinformation was dated properly. that is not false information. You are the vandal as it is unsourced information there. I should report you for giving a false warning. Spshu (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? The information is outdated as the production companies that you've listed that produced movies with Warner Bros. are INACTIVE, meaning that they don't have an exclusive deal with Warners anymore. You are a TROLL. Get over it. (StephenCezar15 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Red Circle Comics

Hello,

You recently reverted some changes to this page because of citations of the Grand Comicbook Database (GCD), which you marked as an unreliable source. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard had a conversation about the GCD in November of 2012 that seemed, in the end, to determine that there is sufficient editorial oversight for it to count as reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_137#Grand_Comics_Database

Additionally, the Wikipedia editor Psyphics lists the GCD as one of his "Reliable sources for comic book articles" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Psyphics#Reliable_sources_for_comic_book_articles per Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics Cleanup (which no longer seems to have such a list attached). Would you mind providing a source or precedent for your claims that the GCD is NOT a reliable source? I'm still new here, and such information would be valuable to me. Cheers, Mquillig (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

advice

you have been getting into too many arguments. You may in right about most of them, but that isn't the point. The point is how to improve WP articles effectively , and this is best done by making the effort to keep a calm tone, and accepting that you;re not going to win all arguments. Some of use find it helpful to avoid using the other party's name in an argument or discussion; certainly it is helpful never to accuse anyone of anything. Most of us find it helpful when discussing a major issue, to avoid bringing in peripheral or subsidiary issues, and to focus on the article only, not on prior matters. If people complains about what you are doing, stick to the matter at hand, not their manner or possible misbehavior. Personally, I have a rule that I follow 95% of the time, of only speaking twice in any dispute: I say what I have to say,and I answer any misunderstandings. If I haven't convinced people by then, I'm not likely to do any better if I continue. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful if I were you. You don't want to get blocked all because of an edit war on the Warner Bros. article, do you?? King Shadeed 19:24, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

United Artists

Show me a rule, where decades aren't allowed as a section for an article?? King Shadeed 21:01, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

Show me the rule that they must be decades. Decades are not very useful to readers if they don't know when a company event occurred that they are attempt to read about. --Spshu (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I asked. King Shadeed 19:03, November 8, 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, stop.

All you do is erase accurate information, owner/parent lists on infoboxes, and formatting. So don't do that again please! 68.98.224.182 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no you are removing sourcing, sourced information, adding overkill information (as we are not a directory re:addresses) or details that are covered in another article (re:UAMG's div. pres.,etc). Ownership in the company infobox should only be the current owner. It is you who needs to stop. --Spshu (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter?! I've been adding information that I found all over the internet, and NOW you've destroyed it! I'm a SMART person, do you hear?! 68.98.224.182 (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting the pages, Spshu! If you keep doing it, I'll notify an admin, otherwise all the useful information would be lost FOREVER! Plain and simple! 68.98.224.182 (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, could you at least consider leaving notes on the worst pages you two are in conflict over? And could you please explain to me your side of the story, so I can decipher which of you two is in the right on any count? Because I wish to find a solution to the conflict as quickly as possible. Thanks! --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a summary of them as the IP has been blocked and so was his user name: Nathaniel43284. Although it looks like he has another another user name: Nate Speed. Both user names have been blocked indefinitely. Spshu (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MGM template

If I may... why isn't Ken Shapiro listed on the MGM template as MGM's COO? Just wondering, is all. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a navbox template thus all items (except group titles or minor explanatory text) should navigate to an existing article. Yes, I over look the other that didn't have articles and they have been removed. Thanks for asking. Spshu (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 11 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the KDBC-TV page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive editing of One Magnificent Morning, December, 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reversions you have made on One Magnificent Morning. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

In addition, as part of your edit war, you are citing "source" material that has been found to be inaccurate. Your insistent citing and reposting of false source material as if it were "fact," is, by itself, grounds for being blocked. It is better to have no citation than any from false sources. If you continue to cite false source material, you may be blocked from editing, for this disruptive action as well, without further notice. IDriveAStickShift (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you.

December 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to United Artists may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

They had two hits, ''[[The African Queen (film)|The African Queen]]'' and ''[High Noon]]'', thus turned a profit in their first year.<ref name=fu/> Among their first clients were [[Sam

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. 71.213.12.5 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at One Magnificent Morning. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI 3RR Sock reports

@PhilKnight, Bbb23, JamesBWatson, and EdJohnston:

I am not using any IP in any attempt to contravene the block (all IP edits that I know of are were retag with a sig or listed here). I have been stopping a sock/IP loving editor that set a trap with a report of 3RR, which based on the edit summaries of Tt11213 amount to either a sock of his or quasi-vandalizer, who was pushing edits with out source, which I assume and revert with reason to force them to add a source or other appropriate action. The IP editor report me, so I complied with started a discussion to which Ttll213 edit with reversion and one with a source. Which I didn't notice, at first, which I admitted while indicating that it wasn't a reliable source. Meanwhile my counter report was too rote, thus ending up with my block.

Now it seems he has sprung a second phase attempting to get my block to a permanent band. He thus puts forth IP editors that agree with stopping the serial socker as my socks (note the filer reports himself).

RPP on One Magnificent Morning
RPP reports on IP editor on 6 entertainment co. articles
3RR report on many of the same articles, which the IP edits was connected to Nathaniel43284 there
User_talk:Nathan3068alt#December_2014 - Nathan3068alt declaring that he needs his previous version since I destroy the articles, which are most or all of the articles in dispute.
He may be the same "sockmaster" fighting over One Magnificent Morning (OMM) after being shown 6 source indication the standard Saturday morning cartoon blocks are done with the Vortexx: IDriveAStickShift/75.162.212.197, 75.162.179.246/SummerFunMan. Spshu (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if I reread this several more times, I'd understand it, but I'm not going to, at least not now. Perhaps the other two admins you pinged will grasp what you're saying. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel much the same. Your meaning is not at all clear. You appear to be saying that you think someone is using sockpuppets, but beyond that it is difficult to figure out what you are trying to convey. Also, what is the significance of the list of names you have pinged? Are we all in some way connected to the case? (I have no memory of it.) Or are you just pinging a list of administrators in the hope that at least one will do whatever it is that you think needs to be done? If so, you should read WP:ADMINSHOP. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are all connected to the cased as to avoid ADMINSHOPing and hopefully easier for the pinged admins to get what is going on, since this is what they are counting on. I know there has been sockpuppets as SummerFunMan, IDriveAStickShift, Nathaniel43284 were all banned as sockpuppets. James, you block one of the IPs, the OMM sockpuppeter (who, I am uncertain about the connect to the first sockpuppeter who warred against "me destroying the articles" for adding sourced info and using a different format then he would impose) has been working from [block notice on 75.162.179.246 connected to SummerFunMan, who was block for sockpuppetry by the way of continuing the IP edits at OMM. I guess I assume seeing you made the block, that it was over the One Magnificent Morning issue in quickly assembling the information, when I should have pinged Kuru, who seem to be aware of this IP sockpuppetry.

Basically, I am trying to convey that no one administrator seems to have a grasp that the Nathan3068alt/Nathaniel43284 (sockpuppeter 1) is using the OMM incident reported by IDriveAStickShift IP sock 71.213.12.5 (as Bbb23 notes) which got me block as an opportunity as I would unable to defend myself against an attempt to paint me as a sockpuppeter in the entertainment companies incidents by connecting me with an IP editor who also reversed his edit warring to get me banned. Said reporting IP editor, 68.98.224.182, (who previously was block for edit warring over the Entertainment co.s) was shut down at 3RR where he made the claims of my sock puppetry by EdJohnston. This IP then goes on a spree of editing the same list of entertainment articles assuming correctly that I can not stop him given the block he engineered, how ever was blocked by HJ Mitchell.

He or them is gaming the system in effect. Nathaniel has gotten another IP that was currently reversing him blocked and plus some of the articles have been semi-protected to his preferred non-negotiable text and format (third time he has been block for edit warring against source material & logical ibox usage and not discussing it). Spshu (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spshu. You might have an argument, but please don't assume great intelligence on the part of admins. We don't follow long arguments well. Something simpler is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I think Spshu is saying; "Someone is using a bunch of IPs in an attempt to make it look like I am socking. They are doing this by using some of those IPs to make edits similar to those previously made by me, and then using separate IPs to revert those edits, fabricating an edit war in the process. I think the person behind these IPs might be linked to previous sockpuppets in this topic area. I created a list of admins whom I believe have some experience with these socks or this topic." Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone or some two that would attempt to own article (Nathaniel/68.98.224.182 fighting over various entertainment article particularly MGM & SummerFunMan on One Maginficant Morning) and were found to have socks & band. SummerFunMan draws attention to my fight with a non-responsive editor (who I assume is him or some other vandal to treat as revert & ignore), which I attempt to defend against by starting a discussion and point out that other editor continued to edit war despite the discussion thus Bbb23's block on me. Then basic what Lukeno94 said about gaming the system to block me for sockpuppetry. Now, they are back "restoring" their preferred text to articles. The 68.98.224.182 editor who reported my supposed IP sock for 3RR started back up with EdJohnston locking MGM.

Nathaniel43284:68.98.224.182 caught as sock by PhilKnight, Nathan3068alt, probably sock based on article's past version saved almost identical to why 68.98.224.182 & has revert 2 articles (MGM Holdings & United Artists) already since .182 has been blocked.

IDriveAStickShift seems to back in action at OMM as IHateYouTyrannousAddies denying major reliable sources as false, removing the abbreviation. Spshu (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the unlocked article targed by Nathan3068alt at RPP, but he has began his reversals my sourced versions to his OWNed versions. Spshu (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is also retaliating against other recent edits of mine which I add the the RPP request. Now how do I respond if at all at 3RR? --Spshu (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spshu. Do you know how to file at WP:SPI? I can follow your argument part way, as far as the dispute at One Magnificent Morning, but the list of articles at User talk:Nathan3068alt#December 2014 suggests there could be more to the story. I also looked at the 3RR case that led User:PhilKnight to block one of the IPs. That 3RR case was informative because you listed six entertainment articles including Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer where the problem occurred. I did not find any SPI case that mentions these editors. The closest I came was seeing the category at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of IDriveAStickShift. That editor was blocked by User:Bbb23. It occurs to me that User:Nathan3068alt might be the same person as User:Nathaniel43284 who is currently blocked as a sock of User:Nate Speed. It might be worthwhile for someone to open an SPI case for Nate Speed to centralize the information. At a minimum we would be able to justify a bunch of semiprotections of entertainment articles. We might also be able to block the registered socks of Nate Speed, assuming support from checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have had very limited time on Wikipedia in the last few days because of very pressing things going on in my personal life. I have no comment at this point on everything that's been said here (I'm afraid I'm slow at probing these things and I try to be very thorough in my investigations). That said, the one comment that Spshu made higher up about User:IHateYouTyrannousAddies triggered red flags for me. It also helps that I'm more familiar with that aspect of this rather complex thicket. Thus, I have indeffed the user for being a sock of User:IDriveAStickShift. I've also increased the block of the master to indefinite. The stylistic similarities are striking. The pattern of deception is also similar. Indeed, the fact that it took him so long to get to the same removal at One Magnificent Morning is consistent with the deception. Probably others have already noticed, but the user name is also telling as he is taking a pot shot at administrators, something that he did before with his main account. Even if I'm wrong, everything about the account screams sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I filled out a SPI report put the format is off some how and doesn't seem to be listing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I can seem to find the problem. Spshu (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DTV table at WJRT-TV

Stop removing the dtv table and stop messing with the infobox as well! You are also violating WP:OWN by not letting anyone edit the page.66.87.133.153 (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not put resolution/aspect ratio in infoboxes, they go in DTV tables. That's the way it's been, and that's the end of it! 2602:306:C5E4:24A0:2C13:7E54:4163:55C9 (talk) 23:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "way it's been" isn't written in stone nor recognized by WP:TVS nor did any come to a discussion about the matter. Second, you do not go ordering people around. Spshu (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your flat-out refusal to let anyone edit the WJRT-TV page to their likings is a complete violation of WP:OWN. Stop it! 2605:A601:7013:400:6C81:23A3:699D:447A (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is your flat-out refusal to edit per standards. You also do not explain your edits. you make edits not recommended and use made up designations. Your errors included:

removing ubl formatting from ibox for br with ubl being recommended
adding small formatting to ibox as ibox already is formatted small, so being double small is not recommended
removal of the non-primary subchannel branding is the removal of information
newscast designation is directly duplicate of the branding and is talking down/disrespecting the reader/insulting their intelligence
DT2, DT3 are made up compare to using the subchannel number, .1, .2, etc., as WJRT uses D2, D3 as the station can use any thing they want. We are not to be making up designation.
Fybush.com seems to be a fan site, thus not a reliable source
Using cite form is recommended, so no need to turn it back into raw text
Analog-to-digital conversion is an event in the history of the station thus can just be a part of history
what the station carries on its subchannel and changes there to are historical events thus a part of history and are also covered in the ibox, thus a separate section and table are not needed.
You are removing newscast section.
Claiming OWN as my reason when you clearly don't care about WP norms is your attempt to OWN the page. Spshu (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney XD TV channels issue

Hi. Apparently, some local channels are distributed to other countries (Disney XD India, DXD Germany and Austria, DXD UK & Ireland) and some channels are for a group of countries (DXD Turkey, Middle East and Africa, DXD Asia), and some has different feeds (DXD US HD and SD-West, DXD+1 in some European countries, DXD+2 in Italy) and there are some channels that are a rip-off from existent channels (DXD ZA, DXD Scandinavian in Russian prove) and some channels don't exist (DXD Russia, which is a fanmade channel) Just saying. -Bankster1 (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Disney Channel's issue? the issue is about Disney XD. YouTube isn't "prove". Yes, "Just saying." But the source indicated MAVISE is a database of the European Audiovisual Observatory, a part of the Council of Europe that got their information from Office for Communications (OFCOM), United Kingdom, a Licensing authority. So yes, their is a Russian language Disney XD in Lithuania. Yes, you are "Just saying." Cease edit the article and inserting original research. Spshu (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who just wanted to change the main Disney XD article from a localized one to an international. Not surprised at all. YouTube is prove, because it has TVRips from people around the world over thousands of channel, which proves my point on DXD Scandinavia having more than 5 languages available in each country. If you mind, you could search on Wikipedia "Disney Channel Russia" and see that Disney XD doesn't exist there, because the Jetix channels in Eastern Europe would be changed to Disney Channel and not to XD, to be the first step by Disney to enter in those regions. In Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, they receive Disney XD Scandinavia with Russian audiotrack, proved in the TVRip I've linked here. The OFCOM also says that the channel has a "Serbian" and "Croatian" version, which doesn't exist. It's just a rip-off from DXD EMEA in English with Serbo-Croatian subtitles. Hope you understand. I'll put more references to prove my point and avoid this kind of discussions. Cheers. -Bankster1 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What so surprising at all? Disney XD is an internationally available channel and the localized version end up with launch date and some programs listed with all of one or two sources listed, which does not grant the localized version any reason to exist. And this should not be a reason to willy nilly change article against the sources.

Sorry, but the source stands. I don't understand you at all YouTube could be a dubbed by the uploader. You have not even add a single reference and change dates to after the year of the source (Latin America channel from 2009 to 2012 for example) amoungst other errors. Spshu (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin American channel exists since 2009. What's your point? I'm contributing in the article with information I gathered from different sources. If you don't want to believe it, fine. It's your problem. It's surprising the fact that you just wanted to turn the main Disney XD article from an US localized to an international, when the page I'm editing exists. I'm sorry but I will edit this page with the sources I found, including those from other Wikipedias, like the Japanese one, which I found the HD channel launch date. -Bankster1 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the notice. I sure didn't intend to 3RR, but I reverted to get him back to discussion (my talk page then the article's talk page after my Request for FPP) instead of letting him push on with his in effect unexplained reversions away from a sourced version and his follow on foreign language wikipedia & nonsupporting sourcing and he gave no reason for reverting except that he is right. That is way I requested the block, since we had both exceeded the 3RR limit and get back to discussion. Unfortunately, 3RR and BRD allows the disruptive editor to enforce their changes by not show up to discussion or say "I say so" then revert and leave, like Bankster1. Spshu (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

isney Publishing

I note that you have reverted all of the edits I made to this article over the period of an hour and a half yesterday. This is unacceptable behaviour. At the very least, magazine titles are supposed to be in italics - at least fix those errors! Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check again before you fly off the handle (edit summary: "Twofingered Typist's corrections"). I spend several hours updating the articles that happen to co-inside with your editing then added back many of your corrections. In any regards, some of your "correction" like removing the plot were incorrect as a plot summary is allowed for fictional works. Removing "removed non-existent link" isn't necessarily a correction, plus you remove wikilinks to legitimate articles Discover (magazine), Topolino, etc. Sorry, an information update is not "unacceptable behaviour". Spshu (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, it would be polite of you to restore the italics, at a minimum. Your edit removed legitimate italics and removed the word "its" incorrectly, among other changes that Twofingered Typist had made. Neither of you changed the word "lead" to "led" (search for "This lead"), so there is still a copy-editing opportunity for either of you.

It would be great if WP's software dealt with edit conflicts better, but in the meantime, when you undo another editor's good faith edits, it is your obligation to restore those edits that had improved the article. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is your obligation to see that I responded to indicated that I had restore some of his edits, Jonesey95. Which you even link to as that isn't the edit that removed his edits this edit is, but to the one where I started restoring his edits. Acting as if I am not attempting to do so as if I was a complete jerk is uncalled for. I was tired yesterday of attempt to find all the other edits he made that have not been restored as because a number of the earlier ones were not much of a correction (as pointed out) and the other were intermingled with my changes. Spshu (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that you were editing the article at the same time as I. I check periodically to see if others are contributing but as you did one massive edit and then saved it, I could not know. Two points: I was attempting to edit the article so that it did not contain one sentence paragraphs which is not Wikipedia's prefered style; secondly, I disagree that an article on the history of a business should also include plot details of one book. That has nothing to do with the business history. I have fixed the italics in the first paragraph and will leave it at that.Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International channel lists

Thank you for your edits to improve articles. Can you improve Nickelodeon (international), Boomerang (TV channel)#International, and List of international Cartoon Network channels similar to the way you did to Toon Disney, Disney Cinemagic, Jetix, Playhouse Disney, Disney Channels Worldwide, Disney Junior#List of Disney Junior versions, and List of Disney XD TV channels? Like adding sources, putting a summary table, and adding details?

Metropolitan Government

Just saw an edit to a page I watch, and I saw something that surprised me. There is really a part of the Michigan statate constitution which allows for metropolitan government? Using this link, can you find the particular article? I'm really interested in this, and I bet most Michiganders didn't even know that this was a possibility. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on One Magnificent Morning. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. 75.162.243.229 (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary: "Why shouldn't you get the warning for doing the same thing as you warned me for? Are you okay with being a hypocrite?" 19:26, 16 April 2015‎ 75.162.243.229 (talk)‎

Because you posted MY WARNING to you. That would look stupid for me to leave a notice from me to myself. You can see that you are just a name caller (a two year old activity) since I have left every 3RR notice that has been post to my talk page, EVEN ones that editors have posted falsely. You did not join the discussion open since 21:31, 15 March 2015, you ignored the edit summary directing you to the MOS, you ignored the link to Other Stuff before going over 3RR. Leaving the 3RR notice when you have done none of what the notice requires of you. So it even greater hypocrisy that you call me a vandal or a hypocrite. You are disruptive for disruption's sake. Spshu (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Theatre" vs. "Theater" in NYC

Please take a look at the name of any Broadway theatre (there's a list in that article), and you will see it is spelled with "-re". Please take a look at the article on any prestiguous theatre company you've every heard of in NYC, and you'll see that it is almost invariably spelled "-re". (Off-Broadway theatres, Off-Off Broadway) The tradition was long established in NYC -- one of the country's oldest cities -- well before the spelling change came about, and the theatres in the city (and in Boston and Providence and Philadelphia and most of the other older cities) use the "-re" spelling almost exclusively. The exception is movie theaters, which, for the most part, use the "-er" spelling unless they are converted vaudeville or legit theatres, in which case they invariable keep with the "-re" spelling. BMK (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seem to be "Beyond your Ken" that you removing sourced information. This is the second time that I have point this out. Do really want to be reported that you are edit warring and being disruptive over your personal rules about NYC spelling gets to be different. WP either adopts either UK or US spelling, not a NYC spelling. Please actually look at the edit you are reversing. Spshu (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the Paramount was build as a movie theater being you know build by Paramount Pictures' Paramount Publix theater company. --Spshu (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And we are not even talking about the official name or the theater's article which is properly "Paramount Theatre", the article is about the Paramount Building/1501 Broadway!!!! --Spshu (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel TV - Mockingbird-SHIELD spinoff

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Daredevil (TV series), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First no content was removed except for a trivial cameo WP:TVCAST. You know that I have valid reason as were given on in edit summaries and on the talk page. The non-edit summary is the response to an edit warrior and attempt OWN like yourself. You were informed at Talk:Daredevil (TV series)#Sourcing that you are in violation of WP:WPNOTRS despite your misinterpretations. Place a false warniing on my talk page does absolve you for your violations. Spshu (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll keep the Daredevil discussion on that talk, but on to your revert at Marvel TV, PLEASE tell me where in Deadline's source for the SHIELD spinoff in your "restore" edit it explicitly states that this spinoff is a Mockingbird show. Headlining the series does not equal it being a Mockingbird show. Secondly, you reverted valid formatting changes for proper English. My edit here is the best we can do for the time being with all the information given. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First line of the source: "Palicki and Blood’s characters Lance Hunter and Barbara 'Bobbi' Morse aka Mockingbird..." Palicki character is Mockingbird. So, Mockingbird isn't a part of the show? How can you tell me that? Secondly, as written it does not state that it is only a Mockingbird show as it stated "...an unnamed' Mockingbird spinoff series from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D...." and "SHIELD Mockingbird spinoff series" in the production table (this doesn't say "Mockingbird spin off") does not mean it is a explicitly only a Mockingbird show. It only recognizes that that it is a SHIELD spinoff with the recognizable character as Mockingbird. Spshu (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been off wiki for a bit and just restored my version. Please let me explain why. I understand where you are coming from. First the edit has styling and formatting changes in it, so please don't revert the whole thing if you still don't agree. On to the content. I'm not denying that Mockingbird is part of the show, far from it. But in the English language, the order of words that you use does not give the intended meaning that you are trying to convey. If we breakdown the wording that you are using: " an unnamed Mockingbird spinoff series from Agents of SHIELD". This wording means that there is a spinoff series to AoS, that is unnamed, and centered around Mockingbird. Which the source, by the way, does not give us. The only thing the source says is that Palicki and Blood are in discussions to headline the series. Proper wording to convey what you and I both want to say is either my edit OR something along the lines of "an unnamed spinoff series starring Mockingbird and Hunter". You should not be isolating Mockingbird regarding this. As for putting Mockingbird down in the production table, that also gives the incorrect impression, because, as continually stated, we don't know that it is explicitly a Mockingbird show. It does not, as you say "recognizes that it is a SHIELD spinoff with the recognizable character as Mockingbird." You get the interpretation, based on how the English language works, how I described above, that it is centered on Mockingbird, which you and I both have said is not the case. Now, we could shuffle the words around in that first sentence to accurately state this, but we are already clustered there saying info about the creators, how it is from S2 plotlines and isn't going to get a backdoor pilot. Why can't this info be a new sentence as I changed it too? It's the cleanest, most effective and informative way to present this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except you seem not to have basic grasp of primary sources, why would any one take your word on the English language. It is effectively centered as Hunter is her ex-husband. Yes, the word did convey what I meant, but I understand that logic challenged person as yourself my not understand and you are dropping some information. I am not "isolating" as the wording was "an unnamed Mockingbird spinoff series from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. S2," as I did not just state that Mockingbird was the name of the series and that was spinoff from SHIELD plus in the production table "SHIELD Mockingbird spinoff series" was listed not as "Mockingbird spinoff series" as you attempt to claim again. How many times to I have to correct you? Nor was it in Italics to indicate title.

A second sentence would give it undue weight in the article as it is about Marvel TV. Now if you started a subarticle for the show within Marvel TV article then fine, but I add that info to the Mockingbird article § In other media.

I found wording ("Mockingbird & Ex-husband" as that is the roles they play) and a wikilink (to the above) that should work better for you and you have reversed it. A wikilink allows you so you don't have to be to redunate and point some else where for information. Spshu (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Premiere Network

Hey, I need Spelling Premiere Network on WWOR! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.160.39 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Spelling Premiere Network on other stations. Hey! Could you want Spelling Premiere Network to air on other stations such as Atlanta, Twin Cities, Denver, Washington D.C., Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and Portland during 1994-1995?

We'll I will show the stations carried Spelling Premiere Network between 1994-1995 later other than WPWR, KCOP, and WWOR!

Hey! Do you have Spelling Premiere Network on KBHK, KMSP, KPTV, and KUTP (both Chris Craft stations), as well as Atlanta, Denver, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Cleveland, during 1994-1995? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/2601:0:8500:472:7c06:19eb:292d:449d ([[User talk:2601:0:8500:472:7c06:19eb:292d:449d|talk)‎ 21:13, 30 April 2015‎

With out sources I cannot add them to those articles. --Spshu (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Production deals on Universal

Could somebody gave production deals on Universal Studios#Production deals page?

I changed Spike Lee's company from "Miles" to "Acres".

Need sources. Secondly, these production deal lists have been shot down as being over inclusive. Spshu (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, where is Amblin Entertainment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.120.32 (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should go?

Why should gonna stay the Universal Studios#Production deals page as of 2012? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.120.32 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spshu, could you want to expand production deals section ranging to "29: 2012, 30: 2013" and added Legendary Pictures to the Universal Studios#Production deals section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.192.127 (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Swartz Creek Area Fire Department

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Swartz Creek Area Fire Department requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Zackmann08 (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion 2nd nomination

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Swartz Creek Area Fire Department requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Zackmann08 (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time with some else removing your speeding deletion. Please look at the history. --Spshu (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Sue Cooney listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lin Sue Cooney. Since you had some involvement with the Lin Sue Cooney redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carman-Ainsworth High School

Just wanted to let you know I reverted your redirect at the above article. ALL high schools are considered notable. They do not have to meet gng or any other notability standard. They are notable by existence, just like geographic features. John from Idegon (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, John from Idegon, they do need to meet notability standards per Wikipedia:Schools. Spshu (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made a bold edit. I reverted it. The place to discuss notability is not on any talk page, it is at AfD. You've been here plenty long enough to know that. So stop edit warring, take it to AfD or drop it. John from Idegon (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Swartz Creek Area Fire Department for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Swartz Creek Area Fire Department is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swartz Creek Area Fire Department until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swartz Creek Area Fire Department, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You have no way to know my motivation for anything I do. Did I discover this NN article by looking at your talk page? Yes. How does it follow that I did ANYTHING in "retaliation"? Remove your attack from the above article immediately or I will take you to ANI. Your editing is very tendentious. John from Idegon (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled

The Disney archive website is actually a very reliable and respected animation site for all the cancelled movies. It's very interesting and it deserves to stay there.

It is a personal website despite your personal opinion of being "reliable and respected". Spshu (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animation Archive.net is Brian J. Smith personal website. Spshu (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of the Galaxy TV Series moved to wrong space.

The article for the GOTG TV show should be moved back to the main space, making it a user page makes zero sense. Please move it to the main space. Npamusic (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are quiet aware that there is a draft, give your edits there. Under the copyright that WP uses the draft should have been moved to article space. Richiekim should not have just copied over the draft to the RD article. Moved it to make way for the draft, which apparently isn't possible any more. So don't come here and blame me for attempt to clean up Richiekim's mess. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

La chaîne Disney

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to La chaîne Disney, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the article doesn't meet notability and current exists as Télétoon Rétro. You have no business giving said warning. Give the redirect it is clear what the valid reason is. It is highly likely that Télétoon Rétro should be renamed as La chaîne Disney instead of starting a new article. The article is nonconstructive (being like having to be deleted to move TTR there), nonnotable, only primary sourced. Spshu (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave these articles alone. You have no business going around removing primary sources, declaring notability or lack thereof, or deciding which channel is separate from which. As a matter of fact, a comparison of the programming of the two channels in question shows them to be entirely different, with only the channel numbers (likely) being the same. Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Télétoon Rétro, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have no business ordering me to NOT follow WP guidelines then attempt to brand me as disruptive editing to which I have pointed you to via wikilinks. If you continue this you will be reported for disruptive editing. Either learn how to follow the rules and cooperate with other editors, or leave. Spshu (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Disney Channel (Canada). Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will cease leaving false warning on talk page. I will not be intimated by your miss use of warnings. Spshu (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No warnings? No problem. Just don't be surprised if you get reported for your disruptive (actually more like destructive) editing of what are now at least 4 pages (and it looks like there's a 5th one that I didn't get around to yet). Mdrnpndr (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have issues with both of your edits; among other things, you replaced a perfectly good industry publication with a wire service that only reported a basic fact, followed by unjustified speculation that this is related to a la carte TV. It also contains inaccuracies (pick-and-pay is not mandatory until March 2016, Corus said it would be shut down on September 1st). The Cartt source said they were discontinuing Teletoon Retro to expand Cartoon Network's distribution. Plus, primary sources are not strictly forbidden. It is good to have a mixture depending on the topic.

And, for the love of ~~Celestia~~, don't edit war, and don't template the regulars!. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CARTT.ca is per the about page a one man website thus has no editorial oversite (" Cartt.ca is run by an experienced ::journalist.." from its about page) and hidden behind a subscription makes it difficult for me or any one else to confirm. Thus a substitution of a source that every one can confirm says. Primary are not strictly forbidden, they should definitely be removed when a general media new source is found that can source the same information. As per primary source, the WP article should not rely on them thus a major of the sources should not be primary sourced.

Also, I ask you to chime in on you thought on La chaîne Disney being a separate article form Teletoon Retro ((TTR) French-CA. As this is the same as |Talk:FYI_(U.S._TV_channel)#Merge_discussionFYI/Bio as their is no change in ownership, no change in general genre (cartoons to cartoons) and is taking over the license of TTR. as you stated:

Typically, re-brandings of this nature do not get separate articles unless there is a major ownership change with a complete change in scope that is significant and detailed enough for its own article (i.e. Al Jazeera America), or the new network is technically and legally distinct from the previous one (Fox Sports 1). ViperSnake151 Talk 23:34, 1 August 2014+

Also, the French language isn't of a deviation from the CA English language except for that it is taking over for TTR and is announce a bit later. As is the La chaîne Disney major sourced from primary sources, which is against primary source.

So, I have issue with your consistency. I am enforcing what you, ViperSnake151, proclaimed as how cable channels are handled and you have not given a single reason for your complete denial via actions in this matter compared to your statements/actions at FYI/BIO talk.

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, go read this as both of you need to see that your actions in removing reliable news sources are disruptive. "An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." Spshu (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this is an exception to the idea from FYI, mainly because we did not know whether this would be a re-branding of an existing network or not. They did not say whether it was going to replace Teletoon Retro or not, they just said Disney Channel launching September 1. Per this, and for convenience sake, I'd think we'd be rather off treating these two channels as distinct services rather than continuations of whatever they replace.. Also, after realizing what you've been objecting to, I've decided to purge Cartt.ca from the article as being a potentially unreliable source due to the lack of information about its authorship. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"La chaîne Disney is replacing Télétoon Rétro." We do know that except for his and your continue removed of this source and from the Corus PR, which it replaced. It is the only the English language TTR, we don't have a source for.

And I don't know how adding a background section to Disney Channel CA and using existing reliable sources for primary source (and leaving in the primary for which isn't source elsewhere) is removing information? Spshu (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This change in rights is a key part of the network's history, so that is why it is being included into it instead. And also, as you may have noticed, I actually kept your sources this time, but just cleaned up the wording to remove insignificant details (such as CP's bold claim this is related to a la carte). ViperSnake151 Talk 16:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 17 August 2015‎ ViperSnake151 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,515 bytes) (-498)‎ . . ("partial rv; Your wording is literally the exact same information but less concise. Though I did keep the CP source. And stop owning this article."

I would just like the right to edit just like you instead of having every edit reversed by you or Mdrnpndr for false reasons, his attempt to own La chaîne Disney, which can easily be handled in TTR(FR or Disney Channel CA) and Disney Channel CA. You came in to be disruptive to enforce his ownership and disregard for other discussion that you stood behind. Other wise, I am fine with your last edit on Disney Channel CA, you did not need to make a baseless accusation. Spshu (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here and here. Airplaneman ✈ 22:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: ). Thank you. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: cartt.ca

Your assumption that this site was inherently unreliable because it is a "one-man band" seemed a bit questionable, so I did some digging and found more information about the author. He's worked at least 16 years as an independent telecommunications journalist and has had his sites described as "must-reads in the industry", and has been involved with industry functions (he moderated a panel at a Canadian telecom industry summit and cited by CBC in coverage of it). He does seem to have credentials and connections, so I guess in good faith we can assume that he is a reliable source. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Site needs an editorial staff, being a one man band makes it a blog thus not reliable. It is also difficult to verify since it is subscription only. Spshu (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would just mean it's a self-published source per WP:RS, which goes on to say that self-published sources are "sometimes" acceptable "when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." It is clear by the CBC News citation and his participation in telecom industry events that the author is an established expert in the field. And should we also remove all citations to The Wall Street Journal or any other paywalled news source because it is "difficult to verify since it is subscription only"? ViperSnake151 Talk 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be a blog from a news outlet, ie. it must have editorial controls. Wall Street Journal is not completely paywalled while CARTT is 100% unreadable with out subscription. Spshu (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published work does not automatically equal blog. Stop trying to impose standards stricter than what the policies actually dictate. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that. Stop trying to tell me what I said. What you claim I am trying to impose does not jive with "It needs to be a blog from a news outlet,.." Spshu (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This website is absolutely a reliable source; there cannot be any reasonable doubt regarding this. Also, it is not completely unreadable without subscription, as it allows one free article before blocking readers. Mdrnpndr (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read that site as I did not get one free article. And you have not said any thing Mdrnpndr that supports that carrt.ca is a reliable source. Spshu (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAYWALL says that "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." ViperSnake151 Talk 15:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does not prevent or restrict some one from replacing one behind a paywall with a freely available reliable source.

Determining whether or not it is a reliable source is what the paywall is preventing. Spshu (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:Mdrnpndr (Result: ). Thank you. Mdrnpndr (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting improvements

Please don't, as you just did here and here. If you want to revert minor tidying up edits, whether made by me or anyone else, a good reason would help. N-HH talk/edits 13:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually being disruptive now. This is just knee-jerk reverting of basic copyediting and minor tweaks and improvements to content. As already pointed out to you, for example, it's brought back a never-used designation of "Duke Charles" - he may be a duke, but he is never referred to in that way - and just some really clunky English, while removing brief details that were added to the content and some that were already there long before I looked at that section. What is the point exactly? N-HH talk/edits 17:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No you describing what you are doing. You even stalked me over to Bona vacantia and edit warring over the current usage of Escheat to in reference to bankrupt corporations. I follow your "WP paras are meant to be thematically coherent text," reasoning that you gave with thematically edit with explanation of theme: "they are "thematically coherent" given Poundbury & Duchy Original are estate business expansions, Act Yr. threw off date order, one "Duke" should do as a compromise". You seem to have not read my last edit summary or seem not to understand english, since you have used some clunky English in your edit summary. How hard is it to understand that Poundbury and Duchy Originals have their own articles. Your point seems to move the goal post from "thematically coherent text" to "No, just no. Trying again to - a) keep stuff about discrete topics together, not jumbled up". And now you are ignoring the source given in the edit summary that Prince Charles is correct called Duke in regards to the Duchy. Spshu (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't stalk you anywhere. You mostly edit on Disney and TV issues AFAICT, and the bona vacantia page is linked from the duchy page and a topic I've edited about before, if not on the page itself. You have been editing in areas you know nothing about and taken to knee-jerk blanket reverts of even the most basic copyediting, error-correction and minor content-tweaking on those pages. As for you criticising my understanding of English, satire has surely died. I did read your edit summaries, but they contained non-sequiturs and no logical argument, instead appearing to be the work of an extremely confused, absolute fuckwit. It's idiots like you that make even occasional editing on WP utterly pointless. And I don't even care about Prince Charles and his duchy. N-HH talk/edits 18:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:Mdrnpndr (Result: ). Thank you. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Swarm ♠ 03:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: I do not get this at all. I understand that there was an edit war, but any more that is how disruptive editors game the system. You make a "productive contribution" edit then bam, you are jump with a reversal by a disruptive editor. Having been told that page protection should not be request to stop edit warring from happening and most administrator wait until 3 or 4 reverts, constructive editor are at the mercy of the disruptive editor(s). And with out reversing them, the disruptive editor leaves and you are left with a one sided discussion and the article the way they want it. They have gamed the system. If I reverse them then supposedly I am equal guilty. Then can report them with no action or face threats of retaliation against me from administrators for expecting them to enforce "assume good faith" and 3RR.

I point out that he acts incorrectly during edit warring as a disruptive editor and I get blocked and not him? You were aware of his other disruptive actions that you do not seem to care about since you allow that counter report to with out action. Explain to me, why he did not have to start a discussion? While I did? and I got the block? How can this not be punitive? Or just who reports who first? You do understand that Mdrnpndr [oposed starting a merge notice as he felt that he should not have to discuss that with me? Spshu (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive edit to be made

Show me what guideline make it improper to create such a list, @Bbb23:? This seems to part of Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks "that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead; or:"

Don't forget that you were the one to fall for the sock puppet that tricked you in banning me for stopping another disruptive editor. I had to post that while under your block. I should have appeal that block, but the guideline seem circular - admit you did it which should thus lock in your punishment, since you admit your guilt. Then not do it again - no one can guarantee that will not run into another disruptive editor. I have been a productive contributor and made productive edits that have turned into edit wars like the one I just got block for. 84.9% of edits have been on articles or templates. Sorry, you can not assume good faith thus unblock me or even offer an apology. I don't see your need to purposefully harass me by edit warring on my talk page. Spshu (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 18 September

Citizens Republic Bank

Hello Spshu, Within the past hour I made edits to the Citizens Republic Wikipedia Page. I updated generic references to the bank to be more descriptive (i.e. it may have said Citizens but should have said Citizens National Bank). Could you clarify why you reverted all of those changes back to an earlier version? Thank you.Druedavid (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those other version of the name were already used in the article and in headers. You did so to "In an effort to make sure that Citizens Republic Bank is not confused with the Citizens Financial Group (RBS) bank,". If the cannot figure that out by either visiting the disambiguation page, see the article title or the other CRB name titles in the headers then repeating them in the article is not going to help. Plus I had some reversions to make to do an editor removing information from the ibox. Spshu (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is to make it clearer to everyone the difference between the two institutions. If I go in and re-make my updates will you allow them to stay on the page? Druedavid (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you introduced an error in the disambiguation page note at the top of the page. Disambiguation pages are for that and each entry is 1 line for each article there. I still don't know how this would make it "clearer". Hate for you do to this work for nothing. --Spshu (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the error has been corrected - is that true? By "clearer" I mean that when individuals search for terms like "Citizens National Bank" or "Citizens Commercial & Savings Bank", etc. these terms have more weight (due to their repeated usage on the page) and are then more strongly recognized within the wikipedia search engine as well as other search engines. So, if I go in and re-make my updates are you OK with them staying on the page? Druedavid (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that WP's search allows for such "due weight" and Google uses page ranks which has to do with how many times it is linked from other sites. Other like Yahoo! already top rank WP articles. Use the full name each and ever time over pronouns and nicknames is repetitive, thus likely to turn away readers. Your last edit created factual errors, for example, the bank branches operated as "Citizens Bank" not "Citizens Republic Bank". --Spshu (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information that I have added to this page is not incorrect - in fact it is more accurate. As a page editor my goal is to improve accuracy. Can you explain why you continue to remove the clarifying content I have added to the page? Druedavid (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are NOT making more accurate. Read the above previous response to you. The building is no one's HQ or at least is First Merit's regional HQ. Spshu (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ibox info

In looking at other banks that have been acquired, they don't have all of the information that is listed on the CRBC page. Not sure why we need the CEO, # locations, asset size, and url when none of them are applicable anymore. The goal is to clean this page up and remove information that isn't pertinent anymore. Xsqll34 (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not blank the page? None of it is "pertinent anymore". But that isn't what happens and should not happen. And no it is not done on all defunct corporations despite the other. Additional information is added like previous parent companies, not just it current or last. What happens in other article may not be correct and should not be used as your guide. Spshu (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Can you let me know what should be used as a guide then? I want to make sure that the ibox has information that users need with regards to CRBC. With regards to assets, key people, etc, are those the people and numbers when the bank was acquired? I think we should remove that kind of information in the ibox. The history of the bank are valuable and that is why I don't think it makes sense to remove the page. Xsqll34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disney Channel Canada

Please stop removing shows from the program list without sufficient reason. I don't know what you mean by indiscriminate. Plus, these shows are sourced to ARCHIVED TV schedules which are reliable. Gatordragon (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are sufficient in certain cases, as long as the majority of the article still uses secondary sources. Also, a list of programs aired by a channel is encyclopedic, as long as it is sourced, and is not presented in the form of a schedule. This is just my interpretation of policy. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient reason was given, Gatordragon, WP:IINFO. This means that not ever program on the channel is listed even if verifiable. Since schedules are not generally verifiable (accept through some archive website) since it updates to the current days show. Thus show found through TV Guides or other database generated schedules to me make them indescrimate. They were not important enough to get listed in an article or PR piece, thus to me is indiscriminate. That we are just tossing in ever show on the list. It would be like trying to add all the ads on the channel too. Spshu (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the article for the ABC TV network...

You removed American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. as the corporate name for the TV network from the article for American Broadcasting Company (a.k.a. ABC) TV network. Your reason, or, in my opinion, excuse, for doing so was

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. may be a IP holding co. or production holding co.

even though I previously stated that, in the ending credits for the TV show General Hospital (a.k.a. GH), the copyright notice states: © (Year) American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.. Now, after looking up the article for GH, in the show's infobox, it does indeed list the ABC TV network as the production & distribution company for the show. So, judging by that, one could then infer that American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. IS in fact the ABC TV network's corporate name. Another time that I re-inserted the corporate name, you said

see American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres for ABCompanies, Inc., the former AB-PT

Well, according to THAT article, the network was eventually known as ABCompanies, Inc. (as you referred to it) before taking on the name ABC Television, Inc. on July 8, 1986, while on that same date, a second company taking on the name ABCompanies, Inc. was formed. However, 3 years later, ABC Television was dissolved, which would then leave the new ABCompanies as the network's name. (the article for AB-PT has been edited to correlate with the information currently present/ed in the article for ABC)

Now, the thing is, ALL TV networks are businesses. And, businesses have corporate (or legal, according to Wikipedia) names (as well as some having trade names, which are indicated by DBA). CBS's corporate name is CBS Broadcasting, Inc., NBC's is NBCUniversal, Inc., The CW The CW Network, LLC, Fox (or FOX, depending on your preference) Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC, MyNetwork TV MyNetworkTV, Inc., & Ion Television Ion Television, Inc.. In the case of the ABC TV network, ABC, Inc. (d.b.a. Disney-ABC Television Group) wouldn't be the corporate name for the network, as that is actually ABC's parent company, similar to CBS Corp as CBS's parent, NBCU as NBC's, Fox Entertainment Group as Fox's, & Ion Media Networks as Ion Television's.

In fact, if you need anymore proof that the information I had inserted into the article is indeed correct, look up documentation for the court case Aereo is involved in against CBS, NBC, ABC, & Fox. In the documentation, ABC is listed by its corporate name, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc..

So, to conclude my little rant here, unless you can provide indisputable proof from a legitimate, credible source (like I did by linking to the Bloomberg Business profile for ABCompanies in the article or mentioning Aereo's court case here) that shows ABC as being anything other than American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., I expect you to re-insert American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. as the network's corporate name at your earliest convenience. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, since you're probably (still) a little shaken up from the schooling I put you through, I'll re-insert the information myself, using a reference from the official website for the US Supreme Court, which should suffice as a legitimate, credible source for the information. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You many not infer that American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABCos, Inc.) is the corporate name of the network based on the copyright of General Hospital. All Disney movies are not copyright to Disney Pictures, Inc., Disney Motion Pictures Group, Inc. nor the Walt Disney Company, but to Disney Enterprise, Inc. An IP holding is a corporation set up just to hold copyright. So indicating what the General Hospital copyright belongs to American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., does make the ABC Network's legal corporate name to be the same.

No not all networks are business, see PBS which is a nonprofit and so are MHz, Create, World and CAS. I am quite aware of that ABC, Inc. DBA Disney-ABC Television Group as I sourced and ABC, Inc. is a renamed Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. (and previously Capital Cities Communications, Inc.). The source is from a lawsuit involving CBS who sued over "Glass House" production company and the upper levels of the The Walt Disney conglomerate. So you are not teaching me any thing.

Aereo case search have not turned up any thing on ABC network is an assumed name of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. You need to provide the source not me.

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. may be involved as Aereo re-transmits station broadcasts and a previous court case, 186 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 1999), indicates: "AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., dba KABC-TV Inc."

Bloomberg Business profile for ABCompanies does not prove the current ABCos Inc. is the network as it clearly is the two ABCompanies mashed together and state: "American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. provides programming for cable television. The company was formerly known as American Broadcasting-Paramount Theaters, Inc. and changed its name in 1965. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. was founded in 1953 and is based in New York, New York. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company." None of the current information (bolded) of that indicates that it is ABC Network, just that it provides programming and is a subsidiary of TWDC.

So, now until you provide appropriate sourcing your edits will be reversed as your source did not indicated a DBA for ABCos, Inc.. If you think I am "little shaken up from the schooling I put you through", you are mistaken. Spshu (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Two things:

1) I went to the official website for the United States Patent & Trademark Office. I did a search for both "abc" & "american broadcasting companies". As it turned out, I found a filing, serial no. 72156354, whose image matches the logo for ABC. In the filing, for Goods and Services, it reads Broadcasting of Television Programs.; for Owner, it gives two listings; one, titled (REGISTRANT), reads American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., the other, titled (LAST LISTED OWNER), reads AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC. So, according to the USPTO, the circle logo with "abc" in it IS registered to ABCos., which would lead me to believe that ABCos. IS indeed the corporate name of the TV network.

2) I did a Google search & came up with this Bloomberg Business profile for "ABC Television Network". The description states it operates as an American television and radio network. It also operates television stations, radio stations, and various cable channels. In addition, the company provides broadcast programming to stations in the United States.. Not only that, the profile does link to the ABC TV network's official website. So, if that Bloomberg Business profile is correct, the network isn't even referred to by its full name anymore.

So, according to those two pieces (USPTO & Bloomberg Business websites) of info: 1) the name of the article should be changed to ABC Television Network (the network's DBA), much like how the article for ABC, Inc. is named Disney-ABC Television Group (that company's DBA) & 2) the network's corporate name IS indeed ABCos. If anything, it's sounding like the Bloomberg Business profile for ABCos. is incorrect, much like the Bloomberg Business profile for CBS (it states CBS operates as a subsidiary of Westinghouse CBS Holding Company, Inc., which we know isn't true, as the network is owned by CBS Corp). So, there's two sources, legitimate & credible, that state the current situation with ABC. Oh, and neither the USPTO NOR Bloomberg Business have ANY record of ABC Television, whether as the corporate entity for ABC or otherwise.

So, by the looks of it, not only did I thoroughly school you this time, I even dominated you during recess. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and something interesting I found out.... Apparently, not every business profiled on Bloomberg Business is going to have its corporate name listed. I found that out when I was looking up information for the pay-per-view service In Demand. According to Bloomberg's profile for In Demand, it was formerly known as Viewer's Choice. Problem is, Viewer's Choice isn't listed by its corporate name, Pay-Per-View Network, Inc., in the Bloomberg Business profile, just by Viewer's Choice (it's DBA). I had to look up the Viewer's Choice brand on the USPTO's website to find its corporate name. So, even THAT proves that ABCos. might actually be ABC/ABC Television Network's corporate name, even though it's not listed in the Bloomberg profile for ABC.

So now, not only have I thoroughly schooled you & dominated you during recess, I've also sent you home with a teacher's note saying you're failing class. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you did not school me. You completely disregarded any understanding of the Disney Enterprises, Inc. entity which holds the copyrights to all TWDC movies. Another example is Oldemark, LLC which holds all rights to Wendy's Restaurant related trademarks: WENDY'S trademark by Oldemark LLC. The Wendy's Company is the public traded company, but doesn't own the Wendy's trademark. Holding the trademark doesn't indicate that they are DBA under that name. So again, you were "schooled" on trademarks.

Note that the Bloomberg Business record does not indicate a corporate form for ABC Television Network. You cannot dismiss the possibility of Westinghouse CBS Holding Company, Inc., it may be the previous CBS Corporation, which was the renamed Westinghouse Corporation as the original Viacom was renamed CBS Corporation. You do not even seem to be aware of ABC Holding Company Inc. and ABC Network Holding Company, Inc.? As they held large parts of the various ABC group under Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. in 1994.

You are just making a fool of yourself in proclaiming that you are schooling me. Your teaching certificate has been revoked. You should not only be embarrassed thinking that you schooled. Spshu (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by the looks of it, someone smarter than you has done their research on American Broadcasting Companies. And, by the looks of it, it turns out, you were wrong-WRONG-WRONG!!! the EN-TI-RE time. Take a look for yourself: Disney-ABC units; specifically, pay attention to the first bullet point & what it notes.

So, at this point, not only has the teaching certificate been re-instated, a promotion to tenure teacher has been declared, while not only have you been schooled, dominated during recess, & sent home with a teacher's note saying you've failed class, it can now hereby be definitively declared that you are now hereby expelled. 2600:1700:C960:2270:E4F6:D2B:2663:816 (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong? First that is may research. The first bullet point is

ABC, Inc. DBA Disney–ABC Television Group (formerly Capital Cities/ABC Inc.)

- that is the holding company for TV assets from cable channels to the network

Channing Dungey Exits ABC; Karey Burke Named Network President: "Channing Dungey, the first African American to lead a U.S. broadcast network, has departed her role as president, ABC Entertainment. Karey Burke, head of original programming for cable channel Freeform, has been tapped to replace her."

This supports the section further down:

- ABC Entertainment
  - American Broadcasting Company (radio – 1943, television – 1948)

So, no I am not wrong. Spshu (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, seeing as how there is NOT a dot next to "ABC, Inc. DBA Disney-ABC", it is NOT the first bullet point. I was referring to

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.[53] – generally seen as the copyright holder for ABC owned shows

Now, I will GLADLY acknowledge that ABC Inc DBA Disney-ABC IS Disney's TV broadcasting division. I have NEVER refused to recognize that, as there would be NO logical reason for me to do so.

What I have been pointing out, since that first posting in this thread, is that American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. IS the operating company for the ABC TV network, much like how CBS Broadcasting, Inc. is the same for CBS, NBCUniversal Media, LLC is the same for NBC, & Fox Broadcasting Company, Inc. is the same for FOX.

Now, ABC Inc DBA Disney-ABC would be similar to CBS Corporation's Showtime Networks; NBCUniversal's NBCUniversal Cable Entertaiment, NBC Sports Group, & NBCUniversal News Group; & 21st Century Fox's Fox Networks Group, as far as the division of the company that holds the (generally) TV broadcasting properties for each respective company.

Now, according to Wikipedia, in the article for ABC Entertainment, it notes:

Within the entertainment industry, "ABC Entertainment" is more often understood to mean the ABC network division responsible for ordering and scheduling. Nevertheless, the network does not produce entertainment programming.

Now, that means that, more or less, the network itself does NOT produce programming; that is left to the network's production arm, which is ABC Studios. However, programming owned by the network nonetheless would carry a copyright notice which bears the operating name for the network. And, when it comes to programming owned by ABC, from the network-owned shows I've watched, they ALL carry, in their respective copyright notice, "© American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.", as THAT IS the operating name for the network. In fact, if you do a Google search for "american broadcasting companies, inc.", you'll come up with some court cases here & there that mention ABCos, Inc., probably because of someone filing suit against the network.

And, as far as the bullet point list in that section, the placement of the network under ABC Entertainment is incorrect, as the template for Disney-ABC towards the bottom of the page CLEARLY shows ABC Network within ABC Entertainment Group, meaning that ABC & ABC Entertainment are separate entities within ABC Entertainment Group.|

And, to repeat something stated earlier: on Bloomberg's website, it states that American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. operates TV & radio networks, which ABC indeed operates. Now, I couldn't find ANYTHING about ABC Television on Bloomberg, BUT I DID find something about ABC Television Network, which would refer to ABC. In fact, the Bloomberg piece for ABC Television Network even has the link to the website for the TV network.

And, to respond to a reference you used on the Wikipedia page for American Broadcasting Companies, while "Mark Sussman v. American Broadcasting" does reference "American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., dba KABC-TV Inc.", it ALSO references "American Broadcasting Companies, Inc." by itself withOUT a DBA as well.

So, once again, I have proven you wrong, despite what you incorrectly claim.

And, seeing as how it's gotten tiresome attempting to convince you of something that you have so far intentionally incorrectly stated otherwise about, I'm going to end my involvement for now in this argument. ANYONE with a brain that does enough research WILL be able to determine that ABCos, Inc. IS indeed the corporate name for the ABC TV network. But, mark my word; one day, I WILL return to commenting on this situation, once management here @ Wikipedia has been brought to its senses & permanently/indefinitely edit blocked/banned you, preventing you from doing anymore harm to this website & its articles. When said situation does happen, I will FINALLY be able to place the PROVABLY correct information in the article for ABC. Until then, I will walk away from this issue & allow Wikipedia, for now, to state incorrect information (which it has been PROVEN it indeed does). One day, Wikipedia will have no choice but to do its utmost best to ensure PROVABLY correct information is displayed in articles on this website, lest it risk ending up in the hands of someone that can, & possibly would, eventually put it out of its misery. 2600:1700:C960:2270:FCA0:8FB7:E1A5:78E5 (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

←ABC Inc DBA Disney-ABC is not similar to CBS Corporation's Showtime Networks, etc. (off the top of my head, the only similar unit is Fox Networks Group) as they don't hold the broadcast properties, but lets move on. Just stating that you think American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. is American Broadcasting Company network is not proof. Nor is copyright proof. Disney-ABC can assign authorship thus copyrights to any subsidiary they want to (as they do on the film side with Disney Enterprises, Inc. and its subsidiaries like WALT DISNEY FEATURE ANIMATION FLORIDA, INC. that actually author/produce the works); they do not have to assign it to its network operating unit. I have seen ABC shows copyrighted by ABC Studios, so there is some probability that ABCos might be ABC Studios, but I have no proof. So, that there are suits filed against ABCos as they are likely over show issues, so that makes sense since Disney-ABC has designated it as copyright holder for most of its shows. That doesn't proof that it is the network. Disney Co. itself has been sued in those same cases (as are ABC, Inc. and Disney Enterprises). For example: “Life in a Glass House” case: "ABC’s parent company, The Walt Disney Co., is also named as a defendant to the copyright-infringement case, .." "American Broadcasting Companies, Disney Enterprises, ABC dba Disney/ABC Television Group, and ABC’s in-house production company, Keep Calm and Carry On Productions, are also named defendants."

You have not proven me wrong. It is tiresome, since you do not offer any proof and seeming retread the same info and finally actually indicate that you don't have proof. Well if I don't have a brain then you would consider no one to have a brain. One can infer base on what you have offer. It is possible that only insiders to ABC-Disney might know what the corporate name for the ABC TV network is and not by any research. Ranting on like any one on WP is going to stop you if you actual have proof and their is some great conspiracy. I have run into individual that block adding sourced information do that but no great conspiracy on WP against it. You want me ban because you don't have proof? I have been attempt to hunt down Walt Disney Studios' corporate form to no available, it might be considered Disney Enterprises, Inc. but other than it holds all pre-CC/ABC merger assets at that time and that it has all copyrights outside of Marvel, Lucasfilms, ABC and Pixar isn't enough to even say that Disney Enterprises owns Disney Studios. Spshu (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DTS dates?

The documentation says its specifically for dates displayed within tables, yet you seem to insist on displaying all dates in articles, even if in body text, through it. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling me what it is designed for. There is no restrictions to use elsewhere like in the body of an article. I could see that they change it to display the date based on the user's preferences and would prefer usage in the article's body. It also takes up less space particularly to store the months 2 characters (month numbers) compared to up to 8 characters spelled out. --Spshu (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're replacing 8 characters with a template that calls a Lua script that is much longer. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Corus Entertainment

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A-Force

I'm not sure if you saw my edit summary at List of Avengers members, but Secret Wars is not an alternate universe. It is the result of a convergence of all the Marvels universes, and the current status quo. Besides A-Force is scheduled to continue into All-New All-Different Marvel, the next phase of the MU after Secret Wars.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to see this relevant discussion on Fortdj33's talk page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First your edit summary and at A-Force article incorrect indicates that the current Secret Wars is All-New All-Different (ANLD) Marvel universe. As the discussion at Fortdj33 talk page indicates is that you don't know that it will continue or how it will continue into ANAD Marvel universe. Secret Wars is a mashing of lots of alternative universes, which have their own area and is based in the "Arcadia" area, which is clearly not based on the previous MU. Spshu (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where that is indicated, Secret Wars and ANLD are separate entities. Heres a source indicating Secret Wars is the current status quo of Marvel Universe. Arcadia is a part of that universe. Here's a source stating A-Force will be a part of ANLD. Fortdj33 and I agreed that A-Force should be included on the list but it should be included as part of "Other teams" until we know more about the teams presence in ANLD.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Regional Entertainment

Hello Spshu. I see that you recently undid my undo on Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, telling me to look in the talk page to see why you did so. However, the only mention of Disney Regional Entertainment I see on Talk:Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is at the top, where the template says that DRE's history was copied or moved into Parks and Resorts, citing an edit from 2011. However, that doesn't seem to be all that relevant to my reasoning to undo your initial edit. If you are talking about something else in the talk page, please provide a link to it. Thanks Elisfkc (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The full undo message was "see talk page that this where DRE covered", which you found that supports that this was the article covering DRE. Your edit summary indicated that this was basically duplicate of information found else where "Additions made were already mentioned elsewhere". Which does not make even less sense given

Most of Disney Parks & Resorts is duplicate of Disney World, Disneyland, Disneyland, Inc. and other units of Disney Parks & Resorts.
Current information about the Resorts is duplicated between the individual articles and the sections 3,4 & 6 (3. Disney resorts, 4 Disney Cruise Line, 5 Disney Regional Entertainment, 6 Other ventures)
You also thanked me for duplication on 12 November "Elisfkc thanked you for your edit on Walt Disney Imagineering" 3 days ago for duplicate information between Imagineering, WED/Retlaw, Disney Parks & Resort and Disney Theatrical Group articles regarding WED early history (Imagineering-Retlaw) and P&R-DTG-Imgineering on the Disney Fair project.

I am not even sure what you are considering duplicated as there should be as it is the first DQ by DRE and it was a cross affiliate "action", a DRE location at WDW, as DRE was not under Disney Attractions (DA, later P&R) at the time (just months later DRE was placed in DA). I restricted the returned information to DRE's section as there isn't any info on it opening its first DQ. Spshu (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Television Network

I noticed that you reverted the changes in the Star Television Network article back to your latest version. The main reason why I made the edits in the first place is to improve the overall quality of the article (excessive bolding is frowned upon at Wikipedia), corrected a callsign (the Sarasota (actually Venice) affiliate was "WBSV-TV", not "WSBV-TV"), added stations that were affiliated with Star according to other articles (see KPXM-TV, KXLT-TV and WMNT-CD), and made a note that two of the stations signed on after the network folded (WBSV and WTTA). Reverting your article back to your version and discounting all the corrections is considered Wikipedia:Ownership of content, which is against Wikipedia rules. Also, if you are contesting any information, look it up and provide a source, don't just delete it wholesale. Thanks for your cooperation. -- azumanga (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Azumanga1:, You have decreased the over all quality of the article by adding unsourced information. You added information that is not source while moving the citation as if they are sourced. The additional affiliates were not sourced at their article at the time. It is up to the person who adds the additional information to source not me for removing it. Making false claims of WP:OWN for you adding information that is not source just because it exist in other article is not acceptable. Secondly, you are creating "make work" in adding the stations' current affiliation, which is easily ascertained by clicking to the station's article. Instead, you add to editors work in keeping their current affiliation current not only on the station article but on Star Television Network. Additional, you removed additional names used for the network, Starcast, from the first line of the article, which is standard on WP. There is no needed to remove "STN". Enforcing sourcing is not OWN. It is up to the adding editor to source it. Spshu (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"articles about Disney Ch. CA & PReleases do not make Disney XD notable"

What's the problem? Stop outright deleting articles without any discussion. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? They are not deleted, but redirected. As any one that takes a clear look at Disney XD Canada article can see that it is based on articles about Disney Channel Canada and a single press release about DXD Canada. Which does not make it notable what so ever. So what is your problem? You seem out to start edit wars by disregarding WP policies and guidelines like you know Wikipedia:Notability. Spshu (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing still essentially amounts to deletion. There is, in my opinion, such thing as being too bold; if you think there are notability issues, tag it, or nominate it for AFD, rather than just butting in and asserting ownership of the page and articles for all related subjects. You act as this channel must only be covered in the context of its parent network?

Also, does this at least cut it? Since you're acting as the de facto gatekeeper here? ViperSnake151 Talk 15:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That and another article I found will keep it from a redirect. Just a hat notice will due now. Spshu (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: ). Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Laff (TV network). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Katie^talk 00:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hey I did not even get a chance to respond at AfD. I was not disruptive I was being disrupted by Electricburst1996. Secondly, I requested attempt a discussion which he removed from the talk page. Previous history of blocks and edit warring are even suppose (as I understand it) to be use as that is the only way for the blocking administrator, KrakatoaKatie, to jump to your conclusion. Did you bother to note that a few block were done to me for an administrator's co-project mate (no reason given as his co-project was 3RR too), another was through gaming the system by a sock puppet with another disruptive editor and another because administrators refused to do a page protect to get the other editor to the discussion page (despite block notices stating "and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection." And most 3RR reports were frivolous. When looking have even bother to note that Electricburst1996 has reverted 4 times now with basic your permission. That is interest that Electricburst1996 does not bring up his block log and has 1 block in 2 years compared effective less constructive ones.

Electricburst1996 edits: 1. 22:45, 10 December 2015 Laff (TV network) ‎ (Undid revision 694690524 by Spshu (talk) Source or no source, no one but you has expressed any problem with this section.)

Personal attack by singling me out to get me to back down, seems like an OWN action.

2. 23:20, 10 December 2015 Laff (TV network) ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Spshu: Take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television if you want to complain. None of the other subchannel network articles' programming lists have sources, either. (TW))

This is assuming ownership as if I have to appeal from his ruling to WP:TV. And making up standards as any of the subchannel networks I have been involve in edit have sourced programs. I have also worked with administrators/editors to revamp cable channels's list of programs to included only sourced programs as I indicate in next edit summary: "WP:OSE, "policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged "

3. 23:25, 10 December 2015 Laff (TV network) ‎ (Reverted 2 edits by Spshu (talk). (TW))

Which is in response to my edit summary?!?! This is miss use of Twinkle since a summary should be used (WP:TWABUSE) and usually an indicator of a disruptive editor (the lack of edit summary). i reversed with "unexplained reversion".

23:28, 10 December 2015 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎ (Adding new report for Spshu. (TW))

Since, he gets the jump on reporting (having TW) at the AN/3RR, Katie gets to assume he is right?

23:37, 10 December 2015 (diff

Decline reason:

Whatever the problems with Electricburst1996's conduct, your unblock request is not the place to raise them. See WP:NOTTHEM. You seem to be unable to take responsibility for your actions on Wikipedia. You were once blocked "because administrators refused to do a page protect"? Seriously? Huon (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@KrakatoaKatie:, are you going to give your reason or not? I can not read your mind. But given your actions (failing to allow me to respond at 3RR) crossed with Electricburst1996's conduct, this does not seem to be a preventative block. Instead, it looks like you allowed yourself to be gamed. Do I go towards 3RR, yes, since there isn't much support from administrator in dealing with disruptive editors.

@Huon:, as I pointed out I was not given an opportunity to say anything at 3RR, which should have been allowed to respond. 72 hours, would make them stale I would guess. Second, I did not deny my conduct? Where did I say I did not reverse him? Admitting my guilt directly allows the reviewing administrator to say "you agree that you did wrong" thus make it easy to deny a removal/reversal of the block, plus it would just feed Electricburst1996 in believing he is doing the right thing. Administrator do not seem to be responsibility for any of their actions. In this case, green light by Katie of Electricburst1996 by failure to note his misconduct in any way up to and including a block. So, I will take that you clearly wish to endorse his activities too, which is what Electricburst1996 wants. So, you like administrators making disruptive editors in believing they are doing the right thing? or that they should get away with gaming the system? That is what you seem to be say. I don't see how being treated fairly is such a reason to not be unblocked.

Go head and just disregard and continue being a force in run off the productive editors ([[https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Spshu&project=en.wikipedia.org almost 80% all article edits). Spshu (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electricburst1996: Starting a conversation about someone during a time when you know they are unable to take part in that conversation, is just plain childish.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cebr1979: He was blocked for 72 hours; his block could expire tomorrow. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know all of that and the fact that you started the conversation before tomorrow, during a time when you know Spshu is unable to take part in that conversation, is just plain childish.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricburst1996: except that you had tried to ensure that wouldn't happen by asking KrakatoaKatie to revoke his talk page access and to turn the block into indefinite, even insisting about it after the request to go to ANI. LjL (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, LjL. The whole thing was an attempt by Electricburst1996 to have Spshu indef blocked before he would ever be able to defend himself against it. There's no assuming any sort of faith here, it's time to call a spade a spade. With the return to this conversation today, I've gone ahead and thrown the boomerang myself.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu: As you will see when/if you decide to join that conversation, there is sufficient evidence (and justifiable reasoning) for a boomerang towards Electricburst1996. Personally, I won't do it myself (I just have a personal belief that boomerangs should be thrown by the editor originally complained about) but, if thrown by you or someone else, I would certainly support it.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI (U.S. TV channel)

Hello, I just thought I would say again re FYI (U.S. TV channel) that not all blogs are unreliable sources, per WP:BLOGS and similar Wikipedia guidelines. I note that you reverted your own edit, reinstating the citation, so thank you. The website is widely used across Wikipedia and references in mainstream media also. If it bothers you that much, you're welcome to find your own citation from another source if you prefer. Thanks, -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That website indicates that it is a blog ("Australia leading TV blog" and "The site is the personal blog of Commentator, David Knox,...") and isn't attached to a news website, which there for indicates that per WP:BLOGS it is not to be used. Don't defend it with WP:OTHERSTUFF, ie that it is used widely across Wikipedia when it clearly should not. Which I suspected that you would throw such a tantrum that it should be allowed. If it bothers me than according to the policy/guidelines YOU are suppose to find a new citation. but that seems to be lost on other editors. I only left as some status of Australia's BIO channel (closed, became FYI or stayed as BIO) should be covered thus some sort of sourcing. Spshu (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you continued reading, you would note "..are largely not acceptable as sources" - meaning not a blanket ban. The next sentence states "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", which both the author and the website have been. In any case, I have sought opinions from other editors to help determine for us. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freeform Worldwide Inc.

I'm sorry, Spshu. Since ABC Family rebranded to Freeform on January 12, 2016, it is no longer owned by ABC Family Worldwide, Inc.. But Freeform will air on family-oriented series and feature films (including the Disney animated film), but will never air—such as the Marvel Productions libarary (which was now owned by Marvel Entertainment), the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and Digimon franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.21.108.200 (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, you do not order or make decision about how Disney-ABC TV Group decides about their subsidiaries. And No, ABC Family channel was owned by ABC Family Worldwide, Inc. (and perhaps its subsidiary, International Family Entertainment, Inc.). ABC Family channel was rebranded therefor the rebranding does not make it such that "it is no longer owned by ABC Family Worldwide, Inc." You are also making assumptions about the Marvel Productions library "which was now owned by Marvel Entertainment" that is WP:OR with out a source indicating that it has been transfered over to Marvel Entertainment. The Power Rangers (and possible Digimon) have been purchased back by Saban's new corporation, Saban Capital. Go see the discussion at Talk:ABC Family Worldwide#Requested move 14 January 2016. Spshu (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major clean-up necessary for Media conglomerate article...

There is MAJOR clean-up necessary in the "Notable examples" section of the article:

<snip> - remove corrections wanted

I've tried changing the table myself recently, but a couple editors reverted my edits. So, maybe if you make the changes, there won't be the threat of a revert. 2602:304:CEBF:82F0:645A:700:3028:AE00 (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. I looked at the edit history for the article & after 2602's proposed edit, another editor went through, reverted the edit, & left this comment in the edit summary: "RV WP:POINTy removal". Not sure how 2602's edit could be considered a POINTy removal, as Sony/ATV is NOT a print publisher & you pointed out how the "Publishing" row is for print publishers, NOT music publishers. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For one of @2602:304:CEBF:82F0:694B:3930:41F:88AF's edits (utilizing article-section linking), you reverted it, saying "article linking only", which I take to mean not linking to a section within an article. However, you've allowed article-section linking for 21st Century Fox (Fox Filmed Entertainment), Disney (The Walt Disney Studios), Viacom (Paramount Motion Pictures Group), & Time Warner (Warner Bros. Entertainment) for film studios & 21st Century Fox (Fox Television Group) for TV production. You can't have it both ways; either you allow article-section linking for groupings that need it, or you utilize article linking for everything in the table.

Now, I will wait for your response before I tag this discussion section with WP:3O. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go way and stop harassing me for other errors. I did not link to them. I reversed an edit that introduced them. Show me my edit where I added these links? Fix them yourself. I am not response for every error. You cannot attack me for others errors. You cannot use WP:3O as other editor have reversed these types of edits. Don't create a new discussion for an existing one.

Flint water crisis

Your recent editing history at Flint water crisis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post this on the correct problem editor, who has not explain his reversals. You will be reported for supporting edit warring. Do not make such false notice on my page. Spshu (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify me next time you want to revert, so I can block you on the spot. Thanks, and thank you allthefoxes, Drmies (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really do appreciate Drmies bluntness here (and it made me laugh). However, it seems like this is not your first run in with edit warring. The 3RR is pretty simple, man. Just don't. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you are not being collaborative. It doesn't matter if you are right, what matters is that you discuss your changes with other editors, rather than war over who is right and wrong by using the undo button, since nothing gets done then. 3RR means don't revert 3 times. That's really it. So don't. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did look at the record, and I was this close to blocking on the spot. If you, Allthefoxes, had warned them before their last revert I would have blocked. And let me add that this warning (well, the other "edit warring" warning) can be given out before someone hits three, and that an admin can block for less than three if they think that there is indeed edit warring going on. Yes, with a proven track record, one should be more careful. Your opponent does not have such a track record, but they are also likely to get blocked if they make one more revert. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Drmies. I was waiting for the third revert to give out the warning. I will keep that in mind in case I run into something like this again in the future. Cheers, and thank you or your help. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States federal executive departments

question... If the table is sortable, then what is the difference? Just difference... - ^theWOLFchild 00:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look after reverting to the pre-existing table ordering. There is an article for United States presidential line of succession which more a property of the department secretary (or other department head titles). Some may not qualify if they were not natural born citizens or are acting department head. Creation dates are a direct property of the department. Spshu (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Hollywood Hotel

I noticed you deleted the Disney's Hollywood Hotel article. I was wondering how it was not notable, since it is every result I see on Google and it is a Disney hotel. Currently, it is the only Disney resort without an article. Elisfkc (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The hotel is not a resort, but I will assume you are referring to using the term resort is hotel, not the Disney term "resort" that refers to a group of theme parks at a location. Whether or not other Disney hotels with out an article is Other stuff exists meaning just because one or more Disney hotel has an article there for all Disney hotels get an article (looking around additional Disney hotels should not have an article). Notable has to do with reliable sources not that it just comes up on Google. Blogs, fan sites, primary sources (which is the only source in the article, like park.hongkongdisneyland.com or aboutdisneyparks.com, etc.) and travel sites don't count. Wikipedia:Notability indicates that it must be "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." So, the reliable sources to get it to notable status must be major general news sources then meet significant coverage. Thus the major general news sources' article must be all about or significantly about the hotel. Also, it is redirected, not completely delete, so as to make the information retrievable. Spshu (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laff (TV network)

Personally, I think the programming list deserves to be as complete as any of the other lists of such a variety. If you think it's an indiscriminate list of information, then by definition, all of the "list of programs broadcast by" articles are indiscriminate. I recommend that you start an AfD discussion on those articles, but I must warn you - previous discussions were closed as "keep." Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 16:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See response at [Talk:Laff (TV network)#Programming list|its talk page]]. So, no, I am not going follow your order to file AfDs. Spshu (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to United States federal executive departments: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned.
Also, you may also want to consider archiving your talk page, as it's becoming quite lengthy and unwieldy. Please see "Help: Talk page archiving". Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 15:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Television

From IGN: "Legion centers on the story of David Haller, the alleged son of Professor X who was previously diagnosed with Schizophrenia before realizing his supposed illness was actually something more.

Landgraf said this potential series won't take place within the X-Men film universe." "It's not in the continuity of those films in the sense the current X-Men films take place in a universe in which everybody on planet Earth is aware of the existence of mutants," he said. "The series Legion takes place in a parallel universe, if you will, in which the US government is in the early days of being aware that something called mutants exist but the public is not. I wouldn't foresee characters moving back and forth because they really are parallel universes."

Since Legion is part of neither the MCU or X-Men film series, the current notation system in the article is appropriate. - Richiekim (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Deadline source has two quotes indicating that it is in the X-Men Universe. Perhaps an earlier plan or an assumption based on the Hellfire show being in the X-Men film universe. --Spshu (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to PBS Kids does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electricburst1996, stop harassing me. You are quite aware that I generally include an edit summary. My computer was going down and either had to save my work or lose it. Spshu (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: ). Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant Comics

Hey! Didn't want to revert your recent changes to In other media on Valiant Comics without disputing it with you directly.

Your revision incorrectly states that the media in question is self-published, when it is fact it is not published by Valiant directly. The work definitely fits under In other media, just like the movie listing. --Bmanpa (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the revision indicated that the source is self-published ie. licensee of Valiant, Pendant Productions, is the source for them publishing the audio dramas. So call it primary sourcing which is frowned upon. I also indicated WP:UNDUE, since the Pendant Productions is a primary source and not a reliable source, thus not eligible to be in the article. Spshu (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you pulled the WP:UNDUE argument out of your ass. Primary sources do NOT inherently lend undue weight to an article if they are used. No mention of primary sources are made in the policy page. Neutrality of sources is mentioned, but not primary sources. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into it and learned for myself, I do believe Spshu probably meant WP:PRIMARY instead of WP:UNDUE. Even so, you are correct that primary sources do not inherently lend Undue weight to an article, nor are they against Wikipedia rules. It is however not good to use them in excess. A few are definitely okay under Wikipedia rules, just not a whole article that only uses Primary sources. --Bmanpa (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gotcha! My mistake. I not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, so insider sourcing isn't something I realized was an issue. Several sources exist outside the primary Valiant/Pendant sphere, though, so I will revise my edit to link to those instead.

Thanks for cluing me in!--Bmanpa (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing IMDB references

Early today you twice removed an IMDB reference from The Inspectors (TV series), with reasons "is show" and "Wikipedia:Citing IMDb". I do not believe that either of these are good reasons to remove the reference. Wikipedia:Citing IMDB is an opinion essay, not policy or a guideline, and this use case is not even in its list of inappropriate uses. The show has premiered, so its cast list is static and not WP:CRYSTAL. I would appreciate if you would please undo your removal of the reference, or allow me to do so. Mamyles (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you will not. "is show" was for the other half of the edit, given that the removal of the imdb sourcing would not be challenged given Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources should be general known particularly WP:USERG. IMDB allows for user edits there for it is a User-generated content ("Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the Comic Book Database (CBDB.com), content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites."), which was what I was looking for when I found WP:Citing IMDb. Thus the IMDB IS NOT considered a reliable site thus not eligible to be used as a source. Spshu (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should have remembered WP:USERG. Thank you for the clarification. Mamyles (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jeffrey Brohn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeffrey Brohn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Brohn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Melvin P. McCree for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melvin P. McCree is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melvin P. McCree until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pendant Productions

Apparently our resolved content dispute over Valiant Comics has boiled over to Pendant Productions.

I thoroughly followed the procedures laid out in WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY in order to correct the issues you highlighted with Valiant Comics, and I replicated those procedures to fix the same issues you noted on Pendant Productions. And yet, your more recent edit summary states "(notability (no major media coverage), fix ibox formating, rmv. self sourcing info)."

Is the BBC not major media coverage??? Not to mention, most small, independent companies don't have wide press coverage. (Don't believe me, just take a look at the page for Earwolf, another podcasting company.} The ibox formatting follows Wikipedia:Infobox procedures to a tee. All of the self-sourced info was removed; and in compliance with WP:PRIMARY, Kickstarter does not constitute a primary source.

Then you stick a Wikipedia:Notability box at the top of the page, thoroughly ignoring the four sources established in the content you removed. And in the instances where more reliable sources were needed to replace primary or outdated sources, I added Citation Needed boxes to try and establish even MORE notoriety.

WP:DR provides the proper guidelines to handle this dispute. Wikipedia policy states don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. You did none of this in your edits. Instead of following this procedure, you're throwing content to the wind and flagging a 9 year old Wiki entry for notability.

To say the least, I'm frustrated. But I want to do right and resolve this without filing a proper dispute. My request is that we compromise by reverting your last edit and adding Citation Needed notes where required to help other editors establish notoriety. If you just delete information on a whim, you'll never give editors a chance to correct the issue. --Bmanpa (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One source doesn't make one notable ("... those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..."; see also [[WP:CORPDEPTH]) and it has to be significant coverage and in the case of the BBC, it is about the BBC playing Pendant's podcast on their radio channel. Thus BBC is self-publishing in this case and its not BBC news (editorial review) and it is just an external link. Nothing much there (basic trivial) such that a full article could be written up about Pendant. Just like in the Valiant case, both Pendant and Valiant are self-publishing because they have involvement in the audio drama. So most small company don't qualify for notability, they just don't.

[[[Wikipedia:Infobox]] has to with the set up of an ibox, not an ibox itself. See at Template:Infobox_company#Microformat that URL are used for websites and you can see through that page that ubl should be used. The infobox templates are small, (while I can find it yet) I have seen some where here that its not recommended to use small mark up as the iboxes are small to start with. More later.... Spshu (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False claim of improper refactoring

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melvin P. McCree, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 04:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no he incorrectly failed to refractor. Please actually learn what is going on will you. At this rate, you basic a stalker. Spshu (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of refactoring of Bearcat's comment here, and reverted here, was completely sound and justified. It does not matter if it was improper or not - if we're still not clear on this, I strongly suggest that you read WP:TPO word for word. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it word for word. YOU WILL CEASE harassing me. It was not "...completely sound and justified." Per TPO particularly WP:REDACT] :

But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes. Any deleted text should be marked with ~~...~~ or ~~...~~, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text, e.g., deleted.

Read those words. I quoted Bearcat "non-metropolitan" which the editor removed and I correctly REDACT it. Spshu (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. It is up to the original commenter, NOT you, to take action. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does because it looks like I misquoted Bearcat. Thus causing the issue in the notice: "However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melvin P. McCree, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well." Which is what the other editor did. It basical change the nature of my post and left mine hanging.--Spshu (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "It is up to the original commenter, NOT you" do you not understand? Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you re-hashing a 2 month old incident? meamemg (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Meamemg: Largely because he changed the subject heading for this warning. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Meamemg:, because, he is wikihounding me as he has in his head that I must be ban for good. He had nothing else to do with the AfD, just this notice. Administrators don't seem to care. Spshu (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant Comics marketing section tittles

Hello, I'm Electricburst1996. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Valiant Comics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was adequately explained. It is you that have not explained your edits. And the titles are or seems to be promotional titles that Valiant has used. We are not here to promote them. Spshu (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another one of your poorly thought-out arguments. You give absolutely no reasoning beyond "we should not promote them", which amounts to WP:IDLI. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have neutrality rules and no COI, so it is though out. Spshu (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So? How does that even work in this scenario? Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD Australia programming list

Hey man, I would appreciate it if you stop deleting the programming list for the page for Disney XD Australia and New Zealand. I've provided several sources for the list and all of the shows that are listed there are actually airing if you take a look at the schedule. I've put my time into making the list and I'm already getting mad because you wasted all of my time and efforts. So please stop doing this. If you want to talk about it more just PM me. But for now, can you at least keep the programming list on the DXD AUS/NZ page please?

@Brandon J. Marcellus:, I would appreciated it you stop adding programming that is add with out a reliable verifiable source. A TV guide is not reliable as it would change daily thus I would be unable to verify your information. You should be mad at yourself for wasting my time and effort have to remove your additions. It is up to the editor who adds information to properly cite per WP:PROVEIT. Spshu (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu: Fine whatever, I'll find a better source. But I'm only doing this so that you'll stop removing the program list. Because I'm already getting sick and tired of you doing that. You did the same thing last year when I try to restore the list. It gets so frustrating.

Until then, good day to you sir!

Personal ordinariate infobox refs

Regarding this edit (and more particularly its summary), please see WP:INFOBOXREF. It's actually pretty common knowledge and an extension of WP:LEADCITE. I wouldn't characterize that as edit warring at all, as Afterwriting was making a substantially different edit each time, but also making a fix to meet INFOBOXREF at the same time. oknazevad (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While common knowledge, Afterwriting was claiming that it was absolute contrary to his edit summary. He claim that I was being a pain request such a link as you provided. See the discussion at his talk page, where he refused to compromise to head off additional unneeded edits then reversal, which lead to or are edit wars thus the comment. Spshu (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I was "claiming" at all. Your comments are completely false. I suggested some common sense solutions which you refused to discuss with civility and commented about me becoming a "pain" on this issue. I suggest that in future you need to conduct yourself in a much more appropriate and honest manner. Afterwriting (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fifty State Initiative for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fifty State Initiative is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifty State Initiative until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toon Disney is aimed for all kids (2-14) who are gamely & want to go game

http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Toon_Disney

Please, I want a Toon Disney change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:70A3:BF00:16CC:20FF:FE12:405C (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbro Studios and Boulder Media

Hi. The article does not say that Boulder Media is a division of Hasbro Studios. In Variety says nothing about Hasbro Studios. Carefully read the article. "Cullen and his team will report to Hasbro’s (!) chief content officer, Stephen Davis". Davis is Hasbro’s chief content officer (and not only the President of Hasbro Studios). NightShadow (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does say it, not directly. He is Hasbro’s chief content officer as he heads Hasbro Studios. Thus reporting to Davis is being a part of Hasbro Studios. Unless, you think that is consumer products licensing division under his over site (probably why he is also an executive vice president)? The Hasbro website states that "His responsibilities include oversight of Hasbro Studios, the Los Angeles-based entertainment division responsible for all television, film and commercial production and development as well as international distribution, where Hasbro Studio shows are placed in more than 180 territories." (Emphasis mine.) Which thus indicates that Hasbro Studios is in charge of all TV & film productions, thus unless otherwise specified that includes Boulder Media. Spshu (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. NightShadow (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove sources. Adding sources is not original research. You removing more than just about the Hasbro/Hasbro Studio issues as I indicated in the edit summary. Spshu (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Boulder Media is not a division of Hasbro Studios. The source says nothing about it. Do not violate WP:NOR. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the official press release: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160713006391/en/Hasbro-Acquires-Boulder-Media-Animation-Studio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.235.106 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is in the official press release, 107.77.235.106? Yes, it does give an about paragraph for Hasbro Studios is that what you are talking about. I am guessing that NightShadow would not accept that either because it does not expressly says Boulder Media is a subsidiary of Hasbro Studios. And I can seem to find the other discussion I was in on WP about who some reports to indicates subsidiary-parent relationship. Spshu (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: ). Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Hasbro Studios. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. –Darkwind (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwind:, sorry, but I don't understand this block. You claimed that I reverted over 3 times at Hasbro Studios. 1) I did not. Please, actually check the history log. I made no edit between his third and forth edits. Even Electricburst1996 only reports 3 reversals And two, he was being disruptive over the source was not even editing out Hasbro Studios owning Boulder Media thus even his first reversal should cause him to be blocked. He even agreed that the Variety source was preferred over tformers.com which he continual placed back into Hasbro Studios (for Hasbro Studios ownership of Boulder Media). Yes, that is the extend of his edits until his fourth edit, which he used just me being reported at AN3 as reason to start up the content edit war at Hasbro Studios (See WP:AN3#User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: )) which was not before; it was basically disruptive editing. With disruptive editing, it does matter who is right and who is wrong.

This was the text that he was reverting to: "On July 13, 2016, Hasbro Studios acquired Irish animation studio Boulder Media.[10]" tformers.com This was the text that I was returning (or some thing similar) to: "On July 13, 2016, Hasbro Studios acquired Irish animation studio Boulder Media. Boudler (sic) would continue operating separately under its current name under its chief content officer Stephen Davis." ref: Schwindt, Oriana (July 13, 2016). "Hasbro Acquires Dublin-Based Animation Studio Boulder Media". Variety. Retrieved July 14, 2016. (edit summary: "sorry but Variety is a better source & you are removing content for no reason")

He was being disruptive at Boulder Media remove other sourced information as I had sourced the whole article as it was self sourced or unsource and hatnoted as such. I warned him in the edit summary that he should not drag that into the argument over Hasbro Studios/Hasbro ownership of Boulder. (do not remove other content & sourcing not related to Hasbro/Hasbro Studios issue). He was removing -1,218 characters (or bytes) that is more than 7 characters the length of "Studios".

I guess I should not revert any vandalism or distributive editing/editors as they may just reverse it? As Electroburst will see this as a green light to report me for reverting vandalism (since he has been more or less stalking me). I guess I have to pledge not to stop distributive editors and/or get them to see the errors of their ways.

Administrator @Ymblanter: even pointed out to Nightshadow: "No, you are clearly wrong on this point. You made four reverts on the same page (Hasbro Studios) today. Everybody can check the history. 4 > 1-2."

As far as my previous blocks, no administrator that has do so been able to adequately give reasons for the block, administrator refused to page protect articles or have been shown to have been duped. One by a pair of socks, the other by Electricburst1996 (see: User talk:Spshu#December_2015, User_talk:Spshu#ANI notification 2 & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive908#Long-term edit warring and personal attacks by User:Spshu which turned in to a boomrang). Spshu (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the history of that page, you have reverted one edit three times (plus you actually introduced that edit) and additionally one more edit one time, all within 24h. This makes the block completely justified. You can post of course an unblock request.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted four edits on that page between 01:15 and 16:23 (UTC) on 14 July: one two three four. The edit warring policy is very clear:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."
— Wikipedia:Edit warring (emphasis in original)

It does not matter whether all four reverts were on the same editor's work, or whether they were on the same exact edits. Furthermore, none of your reverts were correcting obvious vandalism, nor did they fall within any of the other six 3RR exceptions. You both reverted four times, which is why you both got blocked. Yours was longer because of your block history, which I am neither obligated nor inclined to investigate in detail before performing a block for current disruptive activity. You are absolutely welcome to post an {{unblock}} request and have an uninvolved admin review this situation (as well as your prior blocks if you can convince someone to do so). I will even note here for that hypothetical admin that I am not strongly invested in this either way, should they choose to shorten the block I issued in this case. –Darkwind (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfire Saga edit revert question

@JBnAZ: - sorry I can not respond on the talk page at this time.

You added the release month in the part of the sentence confirmed by Publishers Weekly not the Amazon source. You should have move the reference past the month and year, so another editor could see what source you were use. I am not a mind reader. Secondly, I am not sure that Amazon is a reliable source and should not have been used. I left it there previous as not to start an edit war and my uncertain over using Amazon. I found another source (Time Union) to replace that of Amazon. Spshu (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

@Darkwind:, since I can not challenge, or revert, vandalism or disruptive editor, please take care of these nonsensical edits: adding some unrelated Japanese anime to DreamWorks. Spshu (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwind:. DreamWork Animation-Universal deal has not closed yet. But editors are editing Major film studio and DreamWorks Animation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DreamWorks_Animation&type=revision&diff=729929578&oldid=729789552 as if it has. Spshu (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not obligated to perform requested edits for users that I have blocked. Please stop pinging me, unless you have some material contribution to make to our conversation above. Thank you. –Darkwind (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider joining WikiProject Amusement Parks!

Hello, Spshu thank you for your recent contributions on articles related to amusement parks. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a WikiProject which aims to improve the quality of all amusement park related articles on Wikipedia. Feel free to stop by to learn more and sign up at the Participants page. Hope to see you over there! GoneIn60 (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comet (TV network)

Specifically, for this - [35] - while your WP:PRIMARY tirade did explain most of the edit, it did NOT explain why you removed the following paragraph: "The network's programming consists of content from science fiction and related genres, with a mix of theatrically released feature films and select off-network series from the 1960s to the 2000s (such as Stargate SG-1 and the 1990s revival of The Outer Limits)./ref name="Outer Places"/ This gives Comet a more distinctive format than that commonly found on other multicast networks such as MeTV, Antenna TV and Decades, which maintain a general entertainment programming format." Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was YOUR WP:PRIMARY tirade and personal attack. You don't explain anything why should I? How about the source doesn't support the sentence and the site seems to be an Outer Limit fan site. Seems obvious at first glance Outer Limit/Outer Place. Stop placing user warning templates when you directly indicate that there is a reason for the edit. Spshu (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Comet (TV network). Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 15:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No you request that Primary source be removed (" I don't think it's sufficient. ...") I pointed to that edit summary when removing the primary sources [36]. So, since the source should be remove, the information supported by said sourced should be removed.

And yes, I can edit my own talk page, even your edits, so long as I don't misrepresent your statements. I has also been pointed out that you continue miss use warnings, thus the edits. A reason was given and furture explained here. There for, placing an another user warning template is incorrect and incorrect to begin with. Spshu (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Newquay

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Newquay. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: ). Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#About the edit warring blocks. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 25 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the University of Michigan–Flint page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: ). Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ready Player One (film)

Spshu, you are hoaxing this page. Stop wasting our time or you will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.46.87 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC) NOt so see: Talk:Ready Player One (film)#Production_companies. Spshu (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had it semied to help cool down this dispute. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposal response

I just got your deletion proposal for Marvel Super Hero Adventures: Frost Fight! If you want to have people debat it's deletion, might I suggest starting a n Arcles for Deletion discussion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want it discussed. What is there to discuss? It is only primary source with no significant non-primary reliable coverage. I looked. The only opposition would is "Well, it is a Marvel movie therefor it 'notable'." Which I have seen the same arguments in other field ("We think it is notable because of x, but we don't want to give proof.") Which then an administrator instead of seeing who applied notability correct goes with the vote. If you want a discussion, you can easily remove the proposed deletion. Then I will start a AfD. Spshu (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc talk 08:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States

Your recent editing history at Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mackinac Bridge

You appear to be engaged in a edit war and WP:3RR applies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but you don't need to give me two warning. And no 3RR doesn't apply. Spshu (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applies, neither you nor I are exempt. You templated me and I could say the same. In any event, I did not say you violated it. Let us work this out on the talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did not choose to work it out on the talk page. You ignore discussion and revert any ways even when it is clear you are in the wrong. Spshu (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk: Where Monsters Dwell

Hi, can I ask why you redirected the Hulk: Where Monsters Dwell article? You mentioned that it wasn't notable, but all films are notable enough to have their own articles as long as there's enough references. More reviews and other details about the film are now coming online so the article can be greatly improved if it goes back up.The Editor 155 (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since, you feel you might get enough notable source. If you feel that these sources will become available then have at it, I have reversed the redirect. Spshu (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 26 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Westinghouse Licensing Corporation page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: ). Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You and Vjmlhds are both warned for edit warring per the closure of the WP:AN3 report. I assume you will try to get consensus on the talk page before making further template edits. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Television

I'm not sure why you chose to use the undo button when your change ultimately did not revert my change. Is there a specific reason you chose this action? - DinoSlider (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it in the edit summary. To restate, it looked like you did not carry out the correction needed based on the sample corrections there. Hence using undo original seemed appropriate at the time. I should have back out and did a regular edit. --Spshu (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Spshu. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring notification discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding edit warring. The discussion is about the topic Coney Island hot dog. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Disney Consumer Products page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the VStar Entertainment Group page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Sesame Street Live page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The cast members you removed from Hulk: Where Monsters Dwell had come from the credits of the film where they weren't listed on the source as the other ones. I'm just letting you know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WBNG-DT2

Proposed deletion notices can be removed by anyone. Once removed, they must not be restored. SpinningSpark 01:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defenders template

Stop inserting non full articles in the template. Redirects and sections are useless in a template because the entire point of them is to connect stand-alone articles, not to tell the reader everything about the team/series/artist. If you want to add them back split them into separate articles.★Trekker (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop acting like you're doing right now and respond with an actual argument?★Trekker (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IF you would stop causing edit conflicts, so I can respond. Look again, it was changed to the full article wikilink as you requested. The article is half for the Defender's Gargoyle so a link to the full article is appropriate. So no article should link to the Gargoyle (comics) article just because there are two called Gargoyle - as the navboxes are substitutes/equivlent of see also sections. You are the one with no argument, edit warring and name calling. Spshu (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. You were equally responsible for the it conflict. God, I hate people who pretend like the victim in situations like these. "You're edit warring". Yeah, so were you. Maybe give a motivation or explain it properly next time.★Trekker (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit warring warning after I already contacted you on your talkpage and stopped eating by the way. Really necessary. This wouldn't have happened in the first place if you hadn't added bad links int he first place.★Trekker (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, screw it. Do whatever you want, too many people already added whatever nonsense to templates anyway for it to be a problem to be worth bothering to take care of. I'm too tired to bother with this anymore.★Trekker (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heroes & Icons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charge!. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi, I just want to say that I'm sorry for the conflict recently. I acted pretty immature and overreacted to a simple misunderstanding and I'm sorry for that. I've thought it over and I realize that I need to think over situations more before I react and that I'm too agressive many times. I haven't felt great recently in my life and I'm was not acting mature at all. I hope you understand that I sincerely regret how I acted. You were probably right for the most part and I lashed out due to having a bruised ego. I can't remember exactly everything that was said latest but I hope I didn't insult you or offend you.★Trekker (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. You seem sincere. Spshu (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cars (franchise)

I appreciate you changing the labels, but I'm not seeing that data in the displayed infobox. I'm not sure what the issue is. :(Naraht (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My fault to being with. I put the fields into the Plainlist table in the attractions (basically before the end brackets }}). It is fixed now. Thanks for the heads up. I was on it. If I had move on you would have drawn attention to the error. Spshu (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Disney Channel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern Lights. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to ABC Daytime, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Digifan23 (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MGM Television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NBC Studios. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animation studios

This edit war over Animation studios owned by The Walt Disney Company has got to stop so I'm following Wikipedia guidelines by trying to reach a consensus with you. I'm letting you know that I kept most of your contributions, but placed them in parenthesis. I'm not sure placing "(primary production company)" is really necessary alongside Lilo & Stitch and Brother Bear since the Disney direct-to-video sequels that were produced solely in Australia and Canada don't need to have that on the article. However, you need to stop being sensitive when someone changes your writing and carrying on an nonconstructive nature. As others have suggested, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the welcome page. We improve and revise upon each other's writing.

Again, I'm sorry I didn't recognize what you were trying to do, but I feel it's useful since most of the Feature Animation films were often produced in two or three countries. Christianster94 (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not following WP guidelines. How about reading the edit summary, you might find out about what you did in error. If you consider this to be an edit war then you intent to edit war and you are too sensitive to have some correct your errors. Take your own suggestion about familiarize yourself with WP policy. You are continuing to edit contrary to source information. You have:

Add another source for the Brother Bear layoff that is in the "os2" source "After the Magic" Orlando Sentinel article
() next to () is jarring, which you claim that you are not trying to do, the first set are used as a separator thus no need for another set right after them. That is jarring.
all Walt Disney Feature Animation Florida, so you resourced them for what reason?
redlinks are OK, Andrew Millstein has served as head of multiple units at Disney (Secret Lab, Fl animiation, Circle 7, Disney Animation Studios) so there is some possibly that he will be notable enough to get an article
No need to source a sentence when the source is the same as the paragraph's ("Australia was assigned additional film sequels" ¶)
Disney Animation Canada's film list source is right there at the header "Film"[(Screen Daily)], no need to resource then
incorrectly make up Disney Feature Australia, which doesn't not exist
Peter and Jane is a previous name of Return to Neverland and what it was when Canada animation unit handed it off per the source and was linked correctly the Return to Neverland article, don't retro change the name
you removed David Stainton as a key person from the French unit's section and he has an article and he did head the unit and move up higher into Disney Feature Animation becoming its president
You removed Disney Movietoons as who the France unit did work for to making only for the Movietoon's parent unit
also removing that the France unit which did some episode for the Disney TV Animation to as if they did the whole series
Movietoons was the theatrical release name for that unit, now called DisneyToo nStudios. Disney Video Premieres was its direct to video name. So it is some what redunate to list it as a theatrical release by Movietoons.
With Filmography as a header is bold for the Japanese unit, the next logical step would be underline for a sub-header which "Pacific Animation" is. Which I used indents (:) first, which you did not like. With the header should be standardized and use "=" for header, which turns up in the article index, which would be duplicate or have to be prefixed with the unit's initial. But with short subarticles/sections just easier to do with ";", although it is for "definitions" which I don't see as much use.

So, why should I agree to your errors? And why should I allow you to return them? Spshu (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your criticisms, some of the earlier changes such as removing Peter and Jane and changing Disney Movietoons stemmed from ignorance on my part and I changed it. Writing Disney Feature Australia was a complete typo by me, and I fixed it. Removing David Stainton's name was another mistake and I'll be glad to retain it. I'll keep the Andrew Millstein in red links. The use of parenthesis was to help separate the films from the studios since it's more a filmography. The studios that helped co-produced the film felt more like side notes. Finding another source for the Brother Bear layoffs shouldn't be too hard to find. Do you think a table to place all of this information is a good idea (like the table seen in the article List of Warner Bros. films)? Everything about the certain episodes the studios produced for Disney TV Animation can be listed under "Notes" of the filmography table.

Now, I made a compromise to keep your changes and it appeared our editing conflict was over. Now, you reverted everything back to how you want it because of a couple of minor edits by other editors. Among the annoying changes reverted back was the misspelling of "Belle" next to Beauty and the Beast under the Disney Feature Animation Florida section. Again, I'll listen to you what you want as along you are willing to listen to me. Christianster94 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRN case closed

This message template was placed here by Yashovardhan Dhanania, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer#Semi-protected edit request on_3_March_2017". The case is now closed: no relevant discussion found at article talk page. Please discuss at talk page before filing DRN. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Yashovardhan (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by volunteer: if discussion has reached other forums, DRN can't take this case.

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cheddar (TV channel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homebrew. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits to Spider-Man Strikes Back.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Total-Truth-Teller-24 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits to Spider-Man: The Dragon's Challenge.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Total-Truth-Teller-24 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

In the future, please be more careful with your warnings. In concerns to the AFD where we crossed paths, your warning was pretty off-base. Yes, editors are encouraged to comment on content, not editors, but they are free to comment on "editor's understanding of policy or Wikipedia on a whole", which is different. The warning you gave would be more appropriate for off topic complaining about, or attacking of, another editor. That is far from what I did. I was notifying you that you were misunderstanding and misrepresenting a WikiProject-level consensus, which is far from being "disruptive".

Also, probably probably read up on this as well. Its generally considered bad form to regurgitate template warnings to experienced editors. You...acknowledged I was an Admin at the end bit of your "warning", so it would seem you'd understand my experience level to some capacity.

Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you clearly crossed the expected behavior posted at the top of the AfD page. You did in fact inappropriately commented on an editor to which my warning did point you too. but you could not seem to be able to read that post of yours. When you attempt to supposedly correct "misunderstanding and misrepresenting" you are to talk about the rules not about the users. You expressly disregard the stronger restrictions at AfD. You clearly went after me: "I'm sorry, are you telling me the purpose of what I've been maintaining for the last 5-7 years? Not sure how you feel you're more qualified to define a project you haven't been involved in, (or flippantly contradict my last 5-7 years of AFD votes that have largely been based around WP:VG/S and have matched consensus) but you are wrong." That is directly commenting on me and clearly against the instructs at the top: "and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive". Nor did any thing you say a correction (or even an attempt to correct) of supposed misunderstanding and misrepresenting. Wiki project pages do not trump Wikipedia wide guidelines and or policies, which you are proclaiming. You still have not told me how it trumps WP:N. You actually used the improper WP:EVERYTHING argument: "Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what articles should be kept, ..."

Secondly, pointing me to WP:DTTR shows again that you don't understand nor can figure out what is going on. It was not a template, go back to my post and you will not see the template tag like "uw-3rr". I used some of the wording of a template to it clear that this was clearly an error and make it less personal while editing to add the wording at AfD pages for the nature of the error. Some would say that since there isn't a template warring there for some one should not be warned about it, which seem to be your position. But you were warned every time you when to edit at AfD and you still choose to comment about me.

Thirdly, yes, I expected you, @Sergecross73: to have acted to your position, which you did not. The administrator position is a position of trust. So, no deference should be extended when you clearly mess up and is not a shield to hide behind. You should clearly resign from the post, since you could not seem to understand basic English instructions nor comprehend that you erred. Spshu (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The unanimous-except-you AFD speaks for itself, and I already explained how you were wrong in my first comment above. You're hardly a policy expert, so I feel no need to argue further on this. Just making this was documented. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. Abu Dhabi

I left a few comments for you at Talk:Warner Bros. World Abu Dhabi. I'm just leaving this here to make sure you notice them.Bruzer Fox 14:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Universal Pictures - thanks.

You were right to revert my edit at Universal Pictures. "founders=" does work in the info box. I thought the change of "founder=" to "founders=" was just random vandalism. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NBA D-League

You asked for a citation for the name change. I added the source directly from the league itself and its reasoning. This is directly allowed by WP:PRIMARY as it is a straightforward statement with interpretation.What was on there before read like WP:OR without it. As for the league name, I couldn't care less (although the League's statement is "as of the 2017–18 season, we are know as the G-League", just because their website hasn't changed over has not changed that fact). In the end, you put citation needed, I gave a citation. Please stop your reverting.Yosemiter (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not "asked for a citation for the name change". ("In 2005, the league's name was changed to NBA Development League (NBA D-League)[2]") I added one in the article, see the Sports Illustrated source #2. You are interpretation that the source indicates a moves and sales ("some of these teams were purchased by private owners and relocated"). You have not source the move and relocations. So stop reversing the sourcing of NBA Development League. Spshu (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the SI source has no reason for the WHY of the name change. The relocations and expansion are just apparent and obvious history. The teams very existence should be evidence enough. I moved "some of these teams were purchased by private owners and relocated" because that is exactly how they are described in their articles themselves (of which need more sourcing there, but they were published in the primary sources back in 2005) so that might need your cn template. From what I can tell one owner bought or relocated three teams. I also removed the "in a bid to appeal to more fans nationwide. As a result franchises were established in or moved to..." because that is an interpretation for which there is no source, it is WP:OR. By removing it, it no longer needs a source. Everything else you are removing just seems petty. Yosemiter (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of deleting or tagging unsourced statements, you should try actually finding a source. I am tired of finding them for your concerns and reverting things known to be true. Just because someone was lazy years ago when the article was edited does not give you an excuse to be as well. (The Asheville to Tulsa sources took me about one minute to find both a post from Ashville in 2005 and post from Tulsa about the 66ers history). And as to the name at the top, at least two other editors have named it G-League before me, I took that as a consensus to change. If you disagree, it is well beyond time to take it to the Talk page as you have hit your WP:3RR. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me!!! Yes, because some one was lazy years ago does give me the right to remove the information. That does not give you the right to attack me as lazy. You do not know what I did or did not do. I did attempt to find a source. Several sources including the NBA.com self source that I removed clearly show that the Tulsa 66ers is a separate franchise from Asheville.

66ers in Tulsa: A timeline: "NBA commissioner David Stern announces that Tulsa, Albuquerque, Austin and Fort Worth were awarded franchises in the National Basketball Development League." Awarding franchises is general sports business for getting new franchises not purchasing
NBA.com - The NBDL is Expanding to the Southwest: ".. said Stern. 'We are indeed fortunate to have attracted not only an investor in four new teams, but also, in the case of David Kahn, an experienced basketball person who knows what it takes to make these teams succeed.'" "The NBDL teams in Albuquerque, N.M., Austin and Fort Worth, Texas, and Tulsa, Okla. join the Florida Flame (Ft. Myers) as teams independently owned and operated in the league. The Asheville Altitude (N.C.), Columbus Riverdragons (Ga.), Fayetteville Patriots (N.C.), Huntsville Flight (Ala.) and Roanoke Dazzle (Va.) are owned and operated by the NBA." Clearly referred to as new and separate teams.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma_City_Blue&type=revision&diff=784173709&oldid=783968409 I also expressly said in an edit summary about the Altitude-66ers connect: "no source found to connect to Asheville Altitude, rewrite & source history"

I have restored my sourced information that you personal attacked me for in the edit summary and combine in back the Altitude information. Good you found sources, but as you can see with no source found and two sources clearly indicating that the 66ers was a brand new team or that they are distinctly separate teams expected to operate at the same time the only conclusion with out your sources is that the 66ers & Altitude were not the same team. And talk about lazy instead of extract the remove information from the previous edit and adding supporting sources at Oklahoma City Blue, you outright reversed my sourced edits. Thus you did even worst transgression than what you are attacking me for. While I did not make any transgression (see WP:PROVEIT) as the information was again unsourced and contradictory to sources found.

Regarding the League name change, it has been WP policy or guideline not to immediately article names to future name until the name change occurs. NBA.com is still using the D-League logo and name at http://dleague.nba.com/. And the 2017-2018 season, the season that the name change is suppose to take place, has not started yet. And it is interesting that you name this talk page section "NBA D-League" not "NBA G-League". So, it is likely at this point the league is still commonly called the NBA D-League not NBA G-League. Spshu (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the Blue revert, there was extra info and I should have been more careful (especially while I was that tired with it being later at night and more prone to mistakes). But I found your lack of WP:PRESERVE while deleting swaths of history to a team and several drastic changes in the league history. (WP:BEFORE can also be applied even though it wasn't about deleting an article, just entire former teams that are now sections that use to be their own articles prior to merges by consensus of the WP Basketball project. By removing the former team from the history you were essentially deleting that team's page without sufficient discussion.) But considering that for the past decade these teams were always "considered" by people outside the league as relocations, then there clearly had been some sources originally out there to give the media that impression. These lower-level league constantly change and sources die, not to mention that editors back then on sports pages were notorious less than diligent with the inline references. But, it is not like wikipedia editors were just making things up in 2005 and that the press then began referring to like many outlets do these days. It appeared to be a completely overboard series of edits and a frustrating attempt to keep all the correct changes from the incorrect. In this case, I will fully admit that I became lazy (again, read the late at night comment here) and frustrated, but that fact I was able to find two sources in a minute of Googling ("Asheville Altitude sold basketball" was all I used) seemed like a lack of effort on your part. Your comment on PRRfan's talk page about me not being open to discussion is demonstrably false by my trying address your concerns here and on the pages you edited (as well as appropriately starting a discussion at Talk:NBA Gatorade League). The language came from frustration. Yosemiter (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WGN-TV

The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at WGN-TV, you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Now remember that. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{@AdamDeanHall:, Do no go around making false claims of vandalism. WGN-TV is not being acquired (directly) by Tribune thus is not appropriate for paragraphs upon paragraphs about the speculation and possible purchase of Tribune Media by Sinclair. Nor are various formatting (small formating is not recommend in infobox as the text is already small) and TVS discussed corrections (like analog to digital change over into history). I also was in process of correcting my error. Spshu (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two Historical Population Tables on the Same Page is Really Really Detrimental to Automated Script Updates

Regarding [[Swartz Creek, Michigan], it basically means that you'd need full-fledged natural language processing to determine which is the correct one to update, as it's highly context-dependent (not so hard for a human but requires heavy machinery for a script).

Since there are only 2 years with populations specified (one of which doesn't show up on the Template:US Census Population anyway because it's not from a Census year), I'd really prefer to have the population numbers for those years listed in prose and have the lone historical population table be the one for Swartz Creek. Is this okay with you? If not, let me know why and what a better solution will be to this problem. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does having a Historical populations template and a US Census populations template make a difference or not? I guess I wanted the pagr feature/info for the Miller Settlement/pre-incorporated Swartz Creek. Could switch to a general table and work to get a similar formating after pulling the pagr calculation. Or is there a way to invoke pagr calculation with out the hist.pop. template? I may have this situation on a couple more pages. Spshu (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General table is fine, the script only deals with (both) Historical populations template and a US Census populations template. Thanks! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media

I do not understand your adamancy to remove the clearly identified subsidiaries and divisions of DCPI? The article is about a company, said company has clear divisions and subsidiaries. You're withholding information for the infobox. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/about/#our-businesses For context, even the official Walt Disney Company website highlights Disney Consumer and Interactive Media with subsidiaries and divisions. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that you can not read to find out why you are being reversed. Not only are removing mostly correct information, you are moving around ibox fields. This problematic as it doesn't effect the field's display position and it is difficult to figure out what you are changing. You are jumping the departments/divisions for units within those depart./divisions thus pretending they don't exist. Spshu (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except I'm not removing correct information, in fact, I'm adding more information and leaving the pre-existing information as is. Pretty sure you're using that as a statement to revert my edits. You don't need to know how I did my changes, what's important is whether the changes are a correct representation of the company's current incarnation. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message from TTTEFan2017

Your disruptive editing of HiT Entertainment, September 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reversions you have made on One Magnificent Morning. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively,you may be blocked from editing. Dear; Spshu you are being really selfish on Wikipedia every time me and others edit HiT Entertainment it's saved and all of a sudden you come back and remove info from me and other users you should respect other people's opinions I'm NOT a bad user, You're a know it all and should learn important stuff plus anyone can edit Wikipedia plus you type things like, don't add anymore, or whatever else you should believe us and I'm sorry for typing this and you should accept our edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTEFan2017 (talk • contribs

Marvel Comics is formerly Magazine Management

This is a conversation that I had with a moderator, and he elaborated on Marvel Comics different incarnations.

I see, that's understandable. So Marvel Comics (formerly Atlas Comics) was a subsidiary to Marvel Comics Group (formerly Magazine Management) who's parent company was Marvel Entertainment, correct? If that's the case, what happened to Marvel Comics (formerly Atlas Comics) over time? Did it get absorbed into Marvel Comics Group or was it dissolved as a legal entity? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's all cited at the Marvel Comics article. In a nutshell, Atlas Comics wasn't a company but a brand — those 1950s comics were put out by multiple shell companies from Azmiuth to Zenith, all owned by Martin Goodman, who also owned Magazine Management. Beginning in 1961, Goodman began using Marvel Comics as a brand, and gradually brought the comics under Magazine Management, rather than any of the various shell companies. At some point, I believe after the sale to Perfect/Cadence, the Marvel Comics Group division was formed, and from there evolved into the various entities since. I might have a detail or two wrong since I'm doing this off the top of my head, but it's all cited in the various articles.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So was Magazine Management a shell corporation too, or was that registered as a legal entity? because I'm informed about Perfect/Cadence acquiring Magazine Management. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine Management was an incorporated business entity. Atlas and early Marvel Comics were published through something like 28 shell companies, from Azimuth to Zenith. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I expect a response from you regarding this soon. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off Tenebrae has no official status as a "moderator". This was already responded in the edit summary to which to give a nonsense response to (say I am referring to corporation entities when I talked about branding). I have done a great deal of research (for a WP editor) and have a business background. @Tenebrae: has recognized my research expertise. I have give what is a response to your error of claiming "re-branding" and Magazine Management Co. is the current Marvel Comics at the talk page. Spshu (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not making assumptions on your knowledge of Marvel Comics, quite the opposite actually. I wanted to get a clear understanding about what is regarded as the origins of Marvel Comics. I think the confusing comes from the fact that Atlas was renamed Marvel Comics and Magazine Management was renamed Marvel Comics Groups. I used the discussion with @Tenebrae: as the basis for validating my edits, but hey, if that information is incorrect that I'm okay with it getting clarified. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be clear, and I know we're all operating on good faith here, I never claimed to be a "moderator" or anything else official whatsoever. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry mate, that assumption is all on me. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about Calendar

We apologize to modify the 1961–62 United States network television schedule (weekday) and 1962–63 United States network television schedule (weekday) pages. The CBS News program Calendar was actually aired at 7:00am, and local programming aired at 11:30am on the CBS lineup. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:2999:5568:F4E:F76F (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weiss Global Enterprises

We are talking about the defunct syndication company "Weiss Global Enterprises", which distributed movies as well as The Danny Thomas Show. The assets were to sold to SFM in the mid 1990s. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:A9DF:3418:D59D:A504 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Death Valley Days" distributed by SFM Entertainment

So we meet again for the wrong reason. Please DO NOT delete factual info. I added the citation you said was missing. The proper thing to do is to add a 'citation needed' tag regarding edits which are true, but uncited. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelbeard1:, Yes, we do met for the wrong reason. Please actually understand WP:CHALLENGE. Factual information my be deleted if not sourced and may be deleted at the discretion of other editors. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." There is no requirement for me to tag it with a 'citation needed' as that is at my discretion too. "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." That makes it clear that you are in the wrong to come and chastise me over not placing a 'citation needed' tag as the "right thing" to do. You are overstating that I am required to do. Please, stop making such false claims. Spshu (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, YOU are wrong as we have been dealing with you before regarding unhelpful edits and others have too because of the repeated suspensions you were given. Also, if you bothered to read the Death Valley Days article, it clearly shows that SFM Entertainment is the current broadcast distributor of that series. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just quote the rule, so no YOU ARE WRONG and you are the one that can not even read WP:CHALLENGE which I plainly quoted the sentence showing that you are wrong. The edit was helpful since it got you to actually source it. Wikipedia:No original research also states: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Reading the Death Valley Days is irrelevant. Even checking that article now, it has no sourcing that indicates SFM was the original or current distributor nor has DVD rights, some one editing that article just made the assumption. Additional, that article is full of errors, for example, it was not in syndication but move from network to network and it is rife with imdb sourcing, which is not considered a reliable source.

I have also been taken to task for putting a bunch of citation needed in an article for stuff that I could not find a source for but it seems logical to have happened. Spshu (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Play With Caution references

This is ridiculous. You're not taking TV Guide and Zap2It, but you're accepting some random database TV Tango which says on top that it references IMDB.com and TV.com which are unreliable sources, and has a tab to Zap2It? The show exists and it is airing on Disney XD and has sources to back it up. If you need to wait for Disney XD to verify their DXPOfficial Twitter account, then fine, I have provided sources for TV Guide and Zap2It. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those two, TV Guide and Zap2It, are expressly not usable per RS as Zap2It is user edited and both are TV schedules. I did not find any issues at the RS noticeboard about TV Tango. Tango only indicates its search data comes from imdb.com and TV.com. Excuse the hell out me for trying to find something that meets RS, while you do not. Primary sourcing is not good practice either. Spshu (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable per WP:TVFAQ. Also there are multiple cable companies that are including them in listings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that repeatedly removing reliable references is collaborating in good faith, but that issue is being worked out over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not misrepresent others and do not post to the wrong discussion. His acting in bad faith of trying to hammer me with this issue in that issue is not acceptable (WP:AOBF). I in good faith attempt to find an acceptable source. All of those source are TV guide/schedule/listing and/or user edited. --Spshu (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move this to this conversation when my response was in hearing my name called out in the other thread? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read my response. Read it before you respond again. He should not have involked another argument for you to come and misrepresent what the problem is. Why do you need to act in bad faith by claiming I don't act in good faith. I did attempt to find you another source, whether you like it or not, is at least good faith. Trying to valid some else attack me for bad faith by claim such when you clearly should know better is not helping any discussion to stay on track. Spshu (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop merging Marvel Music the record label and Marvel Music the imprint

They're not in the same line of business as Timely Comics, and they both have different parent companies. Just because two companies have a similar name doesn't mean that they should be in the same article. The not to be confused with link exists for a reason. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not listening at the Marvel Music talk page discussion. You have just decide you will implement your own reasons for having separate articles. Spshu (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was listening on the talk page. And I've provided my response. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not. You just ignore the discussions and make a reversion. Spshu (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a valid article split. I'm sorry, but why are you obsessed with linking Marvel Music Inc. and Marvel Music, two unaffiliated businesses just because they have the name "Marvel Music"? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to Iftekharahmed96's post and request that I do not touch his talk page.) I returned your edit, I just expected to keep the discussion at the article talk page. I also noted in the reversal that you show obsession with splitting the two subjects. Note that you, Iftekharahmed96, throwing insults in your edit summary: "It's pathetic that you had to resort to this Spshu." It is not pathetic just point out to you that you are breaking the rules around here about reverting/edit warring instead of collaborating like you claim you do. I did not want to post those notices but you behavior warranted them. I in fact told you in advance of your spliting the article that they were not notable enough and you still did it. You then told me the valid rule for decide if a subject should have its own article isn't valid. ("That's not a valid reason to merge these two unrelated companies.") Spshu (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is my talk page, I do whatever I like with my talk page because it's not a public Wikipedia article. You are clearly trying to threaten me with your false warning because you did not want an article split with Marvel Music. This article split benefits the topic because (A) It's more factually distinct making it easier to distinguish the imprint and record label, (B) the categories with the article are more appropriate, and (C) The Navigation box are linking to legally correct pages. And again, you're being hypocritical because you've edit warred with other people too, e.g.: AngusWOOF Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the talk being yours, but you lashed out at me for doing the same. I was not trying to threaten you with accurate warnings. What I want is for you to stop edit warring and we solve the dispute via discussion instead of your commands and revert which are the hallmark of an edit warrior.

That isn't the benefit of the split. You line up both for AfD not getting them any benefits for any of the subjects. You first ruin the original article from a set up that made them "facutally disinct making it easier to distinguish the imprint and record label" in your demand to follow a MOS that isn't absolute then renege on dropping that if shown articles don't have iboxes at the top. For B), this is not a legal website thus what is legally the case doesn't necessarily rule. If you need a differently then have the redirects go to the appropriate sections of the original article. I know what I have done with other editors. So attempting (ie. collaborating) to get a workable reliable not primary source for what AngusWOOF is hypocritical? Stop post about what you don't know. Spshu (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, you stopped being collaborative when you intentionally removed my response to you. And by the way, I can report you for edit warring with my edits, this is a two way street and not a one way service. Fact of the matter is, making a list with two unaffiliated business just doesn't makes sense, it's not like Animation studios owned by The Walt Disney Company or Timely Comics in which all the entities mentioned in the article are in the same line of business, it's just two companies who have the name Marvel Music. Their association with Marvel with both companies is entirely different. There is no validation to merge them. What I'm noticing here is that you're adamant for an article to be filled to the brim with citations, otherwise it's not valid in your eyes. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did I stop collaborating by directing you to the talk page? I remove a post of yours making an assumption about me ("...but why are you obsessed..."). That did not and does not add to the discussion. No, I dislike editors that decide they are the end all be all and my opinion does not count. You did the same only more. Some how only you have control over your talk page and I don't get control over mine? Or don't want discussion to be in one place on the talk page? I am sick and tired of you twisting what I have said on this and on other article.

Citation is the policy per Wikipedia:Verifiability "This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources."

You will stop posting on my talk page. Spshu (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: ). Thank you. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Marvel Music

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the block. (no I am not being sarcastic). I read your post at EW notice board and do understand it, @EdJohnston:, but general dispute resolution have chosen to not take any case put before them before by me TDA 3O declined. (Yes, unfortunately that brings up the editor that harassed me for about 2 years with administrators letting it go on.) Note that all edit summaries directed him to the talk page and he decried my edit warring notice as false. Previous RfPP in these situations have been declined only for them to direct me to 3RR/EW. I note then due to ViperSnake's edit warring on Marvel Music (imprint) @Anarchyte: page protected the article. While as predictable the responding administrator, Ymblanter, declined the RfPP on Marvel Music. Ymblanter is correct that a discussion was on going. Anarchyte, the issue of Marvel Music (imprint) was under discussion even before the page was split off from Marvel Music (telling him not to do so). So, VipeSnake basically reported me to hide the fact that he was edit warring too. So, it would seem that you need to block ViperSnake151 to get all the guilty parties. I was going to post it at the noticeboard but you blocked me in the middle of the report, Ed. Anarchyte, it did seem that extending the PP longer might be needed as the discussion cannot be completed while the main arguing editors block and another unblocked. So, I guess it would be up to the two of you to figure out what to do about ViperSnake and the imprint article. Spshu (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to KXTV, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edits of KXTV were indeed constructive, unlike your edits, which are hard to read. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EB1911 Citation style

You just reverted this change I made to Great Officer of State. Can you explain the rationale? There are no other instances that I am aware of where a citation to a standard reference work (such as EB1911, EB9, CathEnc) includes the access date, because the text will never change. The only point, I believe, of an access date is to defend against a citation that could change, and sources like these will never change other than to correct typos in the online rendition etc. It's redundant and noisy.

Your reversion also removed the list of secondary sources cited by the encyclopedia (it's standard practice to include these for anyone who wants to dig deeper), the volume/page (again, standard practice for EB1911 and friends), at least one footnote that is not relevant to the tagged text, and a "wstitle" that points to an article that isn't in wikisource (Treasury), thus introducing a link error. So while I would certainly prefer to lose the accessdates, these other items (and some wording improvements) certainly should stay.

@PBS:, would you care to opine? David Brooks (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation DB. On you point about the additional sources, a judgement call has to be made on how relevant they are. I am currently looking to copy the text of "Edward the Black Prince". Dictionary of National Biography. 1885–1900. to Wikipedia. It has a list of endnotes, but most of those are cited in the text (see for example the author Courthope), and I will be copying those citations across in the form: <ref>Hunt 1889, p. 90 cites ''Fœdera'', ii. pp. 798, 811.</ref> per SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and also including the fuller citations as endnotes as they are being cited as short citations. However if the Wikipedia article is well developed and there are modern sources then including the older sources in the endnotes of the EB1911 may not be helpful (unless they are needed under SAYWHEREYOUREADIT). In this case I think that DB is right to include the old sources as bullet points even though they are not cited directly.
It is generally agreed that {{EB1911}}, {{DNB}}, etc do not need access dates for the reason DB has given, see the conversation at template talk:London Gazette#deprecated parameters for a recent comment on this by yet another editor.
@Spshu on 18 September 2013 you made an edit to alter a citation. Your method to do this (using group=mb) was unusual. I have now edited the article to put it into a standard format see (WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTES for details). The other thing that you did when you reverted DB's edit was to alter the citation

{{Cite EB1911|title=Treasury|volume=27|pages=228-229|url=https://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri27chisrich#page/228/mode/2up}}
Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Treasury". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 27 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 228–229.

to

{{Cite EB1911|wstitle=Treasury}} Accessed on 29 March 2012.
Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Treasury" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. Accessed on 29 March 2012.

It is not clear to me why you would want to removed volume and page information as the volume and page numbers that are both part of a full citation as specified in WP:CITE (see also Help:References and page numbers)
Changing the two parameters "title=" and "url=" to "wstitle=" show me that you do not understand that "wstitle=" is a parameter that automatically links to an article on Wikisourcee if that article exists. The reason that DB used "title=" and "url=" is because the article has yet to be ported to Wikisource. So by changing the template as you did you linked to an url that did not exist. More details can be found on the support page of the template {{EB1911}}

-- PBS (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, the both of you consider readers too lazy to be able to click through to the WS EB1911 article to follow the sources? That is quite insulting to the reader. Per WP:CITE, David Brooks and PBS, "Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. If an article already has citations, preserve consistency by using that method or seek consensus on the talk page before changing." which neither of you did before hand. Both of you are in violation of the Arb Com ruling (WP:CITEVAR), there is no standard cite that is required. I added the access by date as at wikisource, each article goes through a couple of steps: scanning (djvu), indexing (visible at article space), proofing and validating, so there might be some possible changes over time. News article should not change unless indicated per journalistic standards and the available news templates has it as a field. Thus as that is in available template for website, it would seem this would not run into any objections.

David Brooks removed eb name sourcing from the table and I could not find right away the Treasury EB1911, which seem more a claim that there isn't a Treasury EB1911 article at all, not that the wikisource version was not up yet.

No such information was lost in that edit it was just move to a header in the reference § for ref group "mb". Look at it again. The full citation comes together in the reference §. How you have it now is confusing and I use group as it was intended given how it works. And now how you have it, I am hunt through the reference list and do not assume that it links to another reference (I assume it goes off page) and that is more confusion then having them all group together. Spshu (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support these edits, and consider it to be very rude for you to deem them unconstructive for no reason. Don't mess with the citation style of an article if it's stable. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My citation style was the stable version, just because you like their edits does not make them the stable version for you to claim per your edit summary: "Unnecessary change in citation style". It is Nonconstructive as it is against Arb Com ruling (WP:CITEVAR), so it is not rude for me to consider you to be disruptive when no one requested a cite change before hand, ViperSnake151. Spshu (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll confirm that the style that I used in my most recent edits is exactly the citation style used in every one of the thousands of uses of {{EB1911}} and {{Cite EB1911}} that I have ever seen. Addition of the volume/page is desirable and should be done if it's not too much effort. After 10+ years, I had never seen an access date until yesterday (while acknowledging that they have been here since you added them in 2012).

Your "too lazy" comment refers, I assume, to the addition of the EB1911 citations' secondary sources as a separate bulleted list. Not at all the intention; I see no harm in providing the information as a supplement for casual readers and many of us EB1911-curators have been adding it, but nobody is stopping the non-lazy users from clicking through. And I removed one footnote because it did not seem to support the text that was tagged.

Re the Treasury article: again, it has become conventional in the many EB1911 references that aren't yet in wikisource to link to archive.org, which has a complete set of very clean scans put there in 2007 (some older ones still link to gutenberg, studylight, hathitrust, or lovetoknow). You can identify the volume number from the WS EB1911 index, which does contain Treasury as a redlink, open the archive.org copy, and (binary) search through it to find the article. Thus, the full citation should have both "title=" and "url=". It's certainly better to put a direct link to the scan page (and it does take some effort to find the exact URL) than a wstitle link that goes to a "not here" page. David Brooks (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your experience with you pushing your style isn't relevant, DB. You claim that volume/page is "desirable", but reject access dates, but "desirable" doesn't make required. You never seen an access date when that standard in the cite templates. Access date is an allowed field of EB1911.

Casual readers are going to care most likely about any additional sourcing. Listing these sources imply that EB1911 is not a reliable source.

Re the Treasury article, I have been aware contrary to Public Broadcasting System's and your assumption the difference between wstitle and url. Perhaps I prefer to link to WikiSource regardless, as perhaps I intended to get the article up there. It is like adding a red link knowing that at some point such an article would be created. Instead, you divert it else where. I had use lovetoknow or some other EB1911 site to link to, only to have it remove EB1911 or shut down. Treasury article is now up at wikisource. So in effect, you have made that edit for little to no reason. (Except that it save me some time in finding the page at archive.org.) Spshu (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be aware of the purpose of adding access-dates in citations with you statement "It is like adding a red link knowing that at some point such an article would be created. Instead, you divert it else where. I had use lovetoknow or some other EB1911 site to link to, only to have it remove EB1911 or shut down". It is two fold one because the link may disappear and an access-date helps to locate it in an archive such as the Wayback Machine, but the other reason is that web-page content may change over time. One article where I used an ephemeral web page was Prussian Trust where the German and Polish government web pages were often updated with new information, so it was necessary to link to a specific instance of those pages as they changed over time.

The reason for using access-dates has been spelled out on the talk pages of WT:CITE, but it is only covered obliquely in the guideline. The use of page numbers and accessdate are covered in WP:CITE: See the section WP:CITEHOW "Citations for books typically include: ... Chapter or page number(s) if appropriate" and the bullet points do not include access-date. However "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include: ... the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)" Also in the section Links and ID numbers give an explanation of the consensus of why access-dates are not included "For web-only sources with no publication date, the "Retrieved" date (or the date you accessed the web page) should be included, in case the web page changes in the future." citation to convenience links to the content of hard copies do not need access-dates because the contents will not change in the future. This is the point that user:Trappist the monk was making in template talk:London Gazette#deprecated parameters. The reason why we still have the access-date parameter in the template is because some of the urls that are used (unlike those articles linked to Wikiource) are potentially ephemeral.

The consensus is that tertiary sources are not as reliable as secondary ones (see WP:PSTS). Adding the endnotes as DB did is useful for readers and it also helps to protect the article from editors adding the template {{One source}}.

You wrote Perhaps I prefer to link to WikiSource regardless, as perhaps I intended to get the article up there. Thank you for creating such an article. However as Wikisource is is not part of Wikipedia please do not link to it before you create such an article. This is because unlike a local link to an article that is yet to be created, it does not show up as a red link but as a blue one. This is confusing both for readers and for other editors.

Links to non-existent articles on Wikisource also make it difficult for editors, such DM to carry out maintenance on the Wikipedia articles that use {{EB1911}} or {{cite EB1911}} templates, because it will give false positives to the maintenance categories under Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, and so an editor deliberately adding links via the parameter wstitle to EB1911 articles on Wikisource that do not exist, and who is aware of the maintenance templates (and that other editors use them for maintenance), will be seen as disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:PBS

You wrote on my talk page:

How do you have that user name? It is misleading that you might be editing on behalf of Public Broadcasting Service. Spshu (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My initials. It is only misleading if you are an American! In the UK the Public Broadcasting service is called the BBC, In Australia ABC, in Canada CBC and New Zealand TVNZ. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW this talk page is way too big. You should consider setting up an auto-archive see help:archive#Automated archival for how to do that. -- PBS (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viacom World Wide

Read two magazine issues "Viacom World Wide" and list every title Viacom distributed by the point, including ones not distributed by Viacom and ones already distributed by Viacom.

Source this: [37] [38] --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:4911:2003:5D8D:EDC2 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Music is now part of Marvel Studios

Marvel Music now re-directs to a sub-section of Marvel Studios. Now you can bespoke the article to your whimsy to meet notability. You can take this opportunity to sample anything from Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe that will be relevant to Marvel Music Inc. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

channel vs network

The use of "channel" and "network" is seriously quite confusing, but a simple guideline is to see if the brand in question has both a broadcast and a web streaming presence. For example, 'fyi' has both a live broadcast sent over cable, dish, etc. and operates a streaming service. Streaming is another "channel" of content. Multiple channels mean it is a network (of channels). -- Netoholic @ 21:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marvel Music (imprint)

On 19 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marvel Music (imprint), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Marvel Comics briefly operated an imprint dedicated to comics about musicians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marvel Music (imprint). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marvel Music (imprint)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Spelling entities

The Thomas-Spelling Productions page has just been created by an anoymous user that used visual edits to build the page. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:A425:35B2:7345:5CD2 (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The origins of Spelling Television began in 1966 as Thomas-Spelling Productions got formed. In 1972, much of the staff held by Aaron Spelling Productions moved over to the newly-established Spelling-Goldberg Productions, and its first project was The Rookies. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:A425:35B2:7345:5CD2 (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need background help for Spelling-Goldberg Productions.

The origins traced to May 1, 1972, when Leonard Goldberg, Screen Gems' top TV executive left the studio to partner with Aaron Spelling, forming out Spelling-Goldberg Productions along with its staff from the Aaron Spelling Productions company. Not only producing The Rookies, he also produced made for TV movies. It was involved in a lawsuit with Worldvision Enterprises, the first distributor for The Rookies before Viacom took over in 1976. SGP signed a deal with Metromedia in 1973. In 1974, an attempt of a sitcom called The Fireman's Ball was made, but it was intially rejected when the FCC delayed the 22-hour program schedule to 1975, but the second pilot however aired in the May of 1975 as Where's the Fire? ABC however managed to dub it as "Aaron's Broadcasting Company", like with Aaron's other company Aaron Spelling Productions. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:A425:35B2:7345:5CD2 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I add others besides TV shows to the Spelling-Goldberg Productions page! --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:C8EE:3A36:CB9C:11C (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the Spelling-Goldberg Productions page might redirect to Spelling Television or not redirected. The rights to their library produced by Aaron Spelling was split into two different companies:

The Thomas-Spelling, Aaron Spelling and Spelling Television libraries was owned by CBS Television Distribution.
The Spelling-Goldberg library now belongs to Sony Pictures Television. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:155F:547B:B6F1:DB81 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Spelling-Goldberg Productions page was edited by anoymous users to add Chopper One plus anything besides TV shows and a few modifications. If its not notable, then it might redirect to the Spelling Television page, due to amid controversy regarding anoymous users' modifications. The ownership to Spelling Television's library belongs to two different companies (CBS Television Distribution for most of Spelling's production output, Sony Pictures Television for the whole entire catalog produced by Aaron Spelling and Leonard Goldberg through Spelling-Goldberg Productions). --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:6CB3:A284:F4A1:D3B3 (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Spelling-Goldberg Productions page was modified by an anoymous user to replace "defunct" with "out of business".

It makes even worse, make it not notable and forced to redirect to the Spelling Television page, and the ownership of its library was split into two different companies (CBS Television Distribution for the Thomas-Spelling, and Spelling Television libraries, and Sony Pictures Television for the Spelling-Goldberg library) --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:31FC:8CE9:84D9:2121 (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to redirect the Spelling-Goldberg Productions page into the Spelling Television page, because this is not notable. An anoymous user said Spelling's production company has its origins in 1965. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:8942:365C:6947:65D8 (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Spelling-Goldberg Productions page has been edited by anoymous users, starting at August 22, 2017 with the addition of Chopper One. An anoymous user says Spelling Television was formed in 1965, not 1969. Spshu agreed that they will redirect the Spelling-Goldberg Productions page, because this was not notable and modified the Spelling Television page. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:51CD:52DC:F6AC:D56D (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Spshu. I want to redirect the whole entire Spelling-Goldberg Productions page into the Spelling Television page, becuase this is not nonsense.--2601:C8:C001:9AF0:5CAC:5719:C8E3:83BA (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, what's the point of moving Spelling-Goldberg Productions to Spelling Television if SGP is a separate company from Spelling Television. Was SGP sold to Spelling Television and Viacom?? King Shadeed 15:05, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

We have good news! King Shadeed removed the Sony template for the Spelling-Goldberg Productions page. I want to redirect this to the Spelling Television page, because this is not notable. Rights to Spelling's library has been split into different companies. The shows (+TV movies) produced by Aaron Spelling and Leonard Goldberg are owned by Sony Pictures Television and much other Spelling content is owned by CBS Television Distribution. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:C40:68E:2A9F:F0DC (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill Dana Show

Spshu, the original distributor of The Bill Dana Show that should've been corrected is Weiss Global Enterprises. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:C18B:8A8A:EBDC:8CB1 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MGM and UAMG

DID we not have this conversation last month in the United Artists talk page? Did we not?? Instead of you always starting edit wars with most users, read and understand these sources properly! Did you bother reading those sources I've put on that talk page and did you find anymore sources that I've put?? King Shadeed 15:18, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we had a conversation about UAMG. My source indicate that UAMG merged into MGM (that you then present again as your source on UA's talk page) is the end. There is no need to talk about UAMG Content LLC or UAMG, LLC. Just like we don't give every little LLC or corporation based joint venture to produce a single show. Nor do each variation of a producers' production company get a separate article. Spshu (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. Now you have a choice. It's either you finally come to a conclusion about adding "UAMG Content, LLC" to the UA history article or I'll send you to ANI. Now what's it gonna be?? King Shadeed 21:58, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

The conclusion is that it is not in the source. Sending me to ANI will find you up for personal attacks and attempting to intimidate me by threatening to take me to ANI. --Spshu (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then do right and stop edit warring with other users and you don't have to worry about people getting on your case and have the administration blocking you for edit warring! King Shadeed 12:01, September 7, 2017 (UTC)

Spelling-Goldberg Productions

No, King Shadeed. SGP was actually sold to Columbia in 1982, which means the page does not redirect to Spelling Television. Also, Spshu replace the simple Broadcasting Magazine magazines with a more visual one. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:A004:2744:5EEB:9592 (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Then the redirection is not needed if I've already provided the sources for it. King Shadeed 14:59, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

Notes on co-production companies.

For a list of Sony Pictures Television shows, I Dream of Jeannie and Nancy were both co-produced by Sidney Sheldon Productions. And for The Monkees, it was co-produced by Raybert Productions. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:CCD6:DAB0:1BBC:4F4A (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Toys to be renamed back to Toy Biz discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marvel_Toys

We're currently having a discussion about Marvel Toys being renamed back to Toy Biz as Toy Biz was the common name for the dissolved business. Please leave your thoughts about this name change towards this discussion. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranging ibox

Spashu, You keep rolling back changes on me and I do not understand what you are referring to by "stop rearranging or rmv. fields in the ibox - it does not effect display, but". I have been editing with the visual editor. I would like to know what is being screwed up as to not continuously have changes rolled back and make sure I am not breaking things. Please be aware of your audience that we are not all experts on Wikipedia but know the subjects that we are updating. Dan roman (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The infomation Box, or ibox, has a set order at its page, which may not necessarily match up with the order of how it is displayed in the article. Editors usually just copy and paste in the the ibox, specifically in this case the settlement ibox, from its page and thus are use to that order. When the fields are moved around or removed it makes it hard to see what was changed or removed as it was with your edits (another). Removing them, presumably because they are blank, doesn't clue up other editors that the field is available and force editors that do know that they exist to hunt down the correct field name (or to see if it was removed from the template). So, perhaps the visual editor is doing it. Spshu (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit to DuckTales

Let me get this off my chest, by saying that I don't approve of what you just did, except for removing additional cast members; that I don't have an issue with. Didn't you check what I had rewritten Production out as, before you went in? Have you checked to find out if any other article for a TV show has a line that begins "'Programme Name' is an 'Nationality' Syndicated 'Genre(s)' programme"? I hardly have seen any article on a show stating this in the beginning of its lead. And what is so wrong about using Small format for some text in Infoboxs? I hardly see an issue for this at all... GUtt01 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On second thoughts, apart from going in to clean up some issues with your edits, such as citations that don't work per both WP:V and WP:RS, I won't argue the issue on infobox format, after checking a few other programme articles. Still, you could have worked around my version of Production, if you wanted to, rather than revert back to your version. GUtt01 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, let's not let this get in the way of our editing. Maybe I should have done my best to review your edit and correct mistakes in the first place, rather than reverting it. I suppose there were some areas you were correct to do, but I have to admit, you did leave in some editing mistakes within. Could you take time to read how the article looks at the moment and see what you think of its presentation? GUtt01 (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to let you know, that I want to apologize for causing you any troubles with this article. Please take time to read what I wrote on the article's talk page. GUtt01 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating AerisWeather page

Hi Spshu - thanks for the information you sent me regarding the updates I had made to the AerisWeather page. However, I do believe some updates will need to be made to accurately reflect the page. I went in and tried to update the company to Praedictix, but then I realized I am not able to update the title of the page. Are you able to do so as the description of the page is a better reflection of the company history for Praedictix. Here's a brief history for your sake:

MediaLogic sold all HamWeather assets including the AerisWeather brand over a year ago which those assets continue to operate under. All MediaLogic remaining assets were rebranded to Praedictix who continue to provide broadcast weather videos, consulting and forensic services.

In conclusion, AerisWeather is no longer in the Media business and is a global weather data and imagery provider only. I am an active AerisWeather employee and we are trying to ensure the information we have online regarding our company is accurate. If you need to confirm on your end, please feel free to hit us up via support: https://www.aerisweather.com/contact/

Bclark0622 (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you are attempting to do is against the rules here particularly, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The AerisWeather.com website and contact with your firm are considered poor sources for said changes. Insufficent support for change. Spshu (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you can assist in updating the AerisWeather page to Praedictix

MediaLogic sold all HamWeather assets including the AerisWeather brand over a year ago which those assets continue to operate under. All MediaLogic remaining assets were rebranded to Praedictix who continue to provide broadcast weather videos, consulting and forensic services. Two separate companies with distinctly different charters. We are not avid Wikipedia users so your assistance is appreciated. Both companies happen to be based in Eden Prairie, MN.

Rebrand to Praedictix https://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/Business/SearchDetails?filingGuid=e8eba010-18c2-e611-8167-00155d46d26e

Best 184.105.35.130 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the above, there will be no forth coming assistance. The assumption of the Praedictix brand does nothing. Spshu (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

Thank you for reaching out to me. I would like to resolve this as AerisWeather is a great tool that I'm using for a project and want to correct and update the article to share some of the features/applications powered by it as a long time lurker and now more active Wikipediaite - perhaps the solution is the rename the page to its current described company name - seems to be Praedictix. Is there a way to fork pages that you can recommend? More confusing than a blank page is one that is wholly inaccurate.

Formerly distributed by Columbia Pictures Television?

I would like that, Barnaby Jones was formerly distributed by Columbia Pictures Television, as evidenced by this source "Broadcasting, June 13, 1977, pg. 50". But King Shadeed agreed in the "List of CBS Television Studios programs#QM Productions" section. King Shadeed also agreed, as evidence by the same source that The San Pedro Beach Bums was originally distributed by Metromedia Producers Corporation. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:81E7:7D05:B95B:11D0 (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're getting my sources twisted up. Columbia Pictures Television had "international" distribution rights to Barnaby Jones, hence being Columbia Pictures International Television. And secondly, I didn't agree saying The San Pedro Beach Bums was originally distributed by MPC. The source said so. Did I add that to the Spelling article? No I did not! So don't get it twisted! King Shadeed 22:30, September 26, 2017 (UTC)

The Spelling-Goldberg Time-Life library

Around the mid 1970s, Time-Life Television got the rights to the pre-1973 Spelling-Goldberg Productions library.^[1]^[2]

King Shadeed, what owns the rights to the TV movies (The Daughters of Joshua Cabe, No Place to Run, Say Goodbye, Maggie Cole, The Bounty Man, Home for the Holidays, The Great American Beauty Contest and The Bait) now? It is Sony Pictures Television (the owners of the Spelling-Goldberg library), HBO Enterprises (the owners of the Time-Life library), CBS Television Studios (the owners of the pre-1973 ABC catalog) or Disney-ABC Domestic Television (the owners of the ABC Circle Films catalog and the copyright to these TV movies)? --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:359B:FDC1:80C1:F23E (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King Shadeed, I think Time-Life only has the TV rights of these TV movies from Spelling-Goldberg (The Daughters of Joshua Cabe, No Place to Run, Say Goodbye, Maggie Cole, The Bounty Man, Home for the Holidays, The Great American Beauty Contest and The Bait). Who owns the rights to these TV movies now? --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:9507:6743:3D0E:8B38 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TTTEfan2017's question

Dear Spshu I'm sorry for what I said about you because of edits for what I made because HIT Entertainment is a company which is 90% British 10% American and can you forgive me Wikipedia is legal to edit free for everyone to use and anyone can create their own articles. And one more question for you What does your name stand for?

Dear; Spshu what are reliable sources?

Spelling Television

King Shadeed, add important notice to the Spelling Television page!

A company ran by Douglas S. Cramer (who partnered with Spelling as executive producer for shows and TV movie projects between 1977 and 1991, and also acts as executive vice president at the time), The Douglas S. Cramer Company co-existed at the same time, producing Wonder Woman, and TV movies like Dawn Potrait of a Teenage Runaway, but these series are not part of the modern day library now owned by CBS. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:9507:6743:3D0E:8B38 (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King Shadeed, I agree. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:F48A:2C59:EC20:89A0 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King Shadeed, I will going to edit the Spelling Television page to replace simple reference links with more advanced reference links derived from sources. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:2989:35B6:E3FC:ACBF (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify a bit of the Spelling Television page, King Shadeed!

"The Spelling logo continues to appear on the covers of DVD releases of the Spelling library except for those shows owned outright by Sony Pictures Television, the shows produced by Danny Thomas and Aaron Spelling, like The Mod Squad and The Guns of Will Sonnett and shows that were not originally produced by Spelling although eventually later acquired, such as Bonanza and the Quinn Martin shows." --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:1C82:E885:7ABE:1B18 (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to do anything to this, that, and the other, so STOP bringing up my name in others and my TALK pages! Don't bother me anymore, got me? King Shadeed 00:44, December 9, 2017 (UTC)

Disney International HD

Disney International HD in India is being marketed as a general entertainment channel by Disney India. Even though it has Disney Channel original shows the strategy in India is different and is completely separate from Disney Channel India. So it should have its own page. User 261115 (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant for having its own page, WP:NOTABILITY is. This channel doesn't have it yet. Spshu (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Productions

Some of the cites were missing author names, pointing to the wrong urls and/or missing dates when articles were published. 86.152.12.237 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Music

This article was redirected after a lengthy effort at consensus at Talk:Marvel Music, as I mentioned in my edit summary. Is there some reason you ignored that and restored it again anyway? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is why there are edit summary!!!!! Read them instead of knee jerking. I will move just post section at your talk page here, @Argento Surfer: Spshu (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from your talk page to keep discusion together) Since Marvel Music comic imprint was considered notable enough for its own article, but not Marvel Music subsidiary for music. It logically follows that the comic imprint is the primary subject. Thus it is in line with discussions as I recall. Secondly, when Marvel Music (imprint) was created, Iftekharahmed96 pawn off that the work was his own in violation of WP procedures and possible copyright violation, thus the Template:Copying within Wikipedia on its talk page (which was never addressed by them). Vipersnake even improperly ID himself and Iftekharahmed96 as the main credited authors while nominating it for DYK. Thus between the two issue, I restore the original article to start over given this issue. With the second step being to remove the current Marvel Music (and previous) subsidiary information, which you cause an edit conflict. Check it out now. Spshu (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary: "restoring correct version - as WP:N would make the comic imprint the primary subject & copyright violation at Marvel Music (imprint)". Spshu (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read your edit summaries - they just weren't clear. What I saw was an editor who had gone back and forth with reverts before coming in months after a talk page discussion and reverting the consensus, resulting in a content fork that duplicates Marvel Music (imprint). Argento Surfer (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer:, Marvel Music (Imprint) is the content fork/duplicate (started on 21:10, 25 July 2017‎) after 19:30, 23 May 2016) imprint info in Marvel Music article as that what is causing the copyright issue. And the edit you claim (25 July 2017) was after the consensus is actually before (16 August 2017) any consensus. Spshu (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. I wasn't claiming that July edit was the consensus. I was using it as an example of the article's history of back-and-forth reverting.

2. Before you restored the article today, there was not a content fork - the information was available only at one place. Your edit is the one that created duplicate content. It may have been at an inappropriate location, but that would

3. I am not interested in any copyright issues, but I fail to see how creating a content fork addresses them. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that the back and forth that you linked occurred after consensus: "What I saw was an editor who had gone back and forth with reverts before coming in months after a talk page discussion and reverting the consensus, resulting in a content fork that duplicates".
Yes, there was a content fork before as it was there before the content fork at (imprint), hence how could Iftekharahmed96 have swiped the information from Marvel Music if it was not there to begin with? How could I have restored the information, if the imprint article was not a fork?
The imprint article content fork caused it, since the information was direct swiped and forked at (imprint) with out credit. Because the original credit form of the imprint information is restored at Marvel Music then I will request a deletion of the (imprint) article and replace it with a redirect. Unless you can give a good reason why not, @Argento Surfer:. Spshu (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. You forgot to highlight the word before in that quote. The diff showed that there was a history of reverting before you came in today and reverted the consensus, which was achieved after the initial reverting problems.

2. This morning, Marvel Music was a redirect with no content, and Marvel Music (imprint) was the only article with information on the imprint. Because of your edit, there are now two articles with information on the imprint. The content fork that exists now was created by you, today.

3. Redirecting (imprint) to Marvel Music is fine with me. If that was what you had done to begin with, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TTTEFan2017's message

Dear; Spshu you thought I was going to send you a complaint alert to you but I'm not because another user edited HiT Entertainment and I didn't make bad edits and I edited that page but please don't think that I made bad edits and I saw you say that I'm not a good user but your wrong and I'm sorry for saying it over and over but I want you to know that I have a user who is a good user like everyone and myself and it is Trivialist and remember to know because that user sends me letters and send letters back and I hope and the user doesn't think that I'm a bad user but you do and say but won't you apologize and if you want to check out the user's page click the link in the description below. PLEASE SEND ME A THANK YOU LETTER AND THANK TRIVIALIST TOO AND FORGIVE ME AND REMEMBER WHAT I TYPED.

Trivialist TTTEFan2017 (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I don't think I've done anything for Spshu that requires thanking.. Trivialist (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Spshu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New World Pictures

I have a quick favour to ask you, would you be able to fix the feature film table of New World Pictures? The formatting's all weird and inconsistent. Cheers. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday message from TTTEFan2017.

Happy Holidays Spshu, I just wanted to say would you like to send a message back to me and I'm going to edit HIT Entertainment so thank me because and don't think I made bad edits and think I'm a bad user send me a thank you letter and say I'm sorry I was wrong for saying don't add or change edits TTTEFan2017 can you forgive me say that on your message back to me please do not ignore my message. TTTEFan2017 (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TTTEFan2017's message

I saw your edit on HiT Entertainment and your right, I was wrong to say do not remove to you send me a message that says Happy Holidays. TTTEFan2017 (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marvel Entertainment. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for you too. Your behavior, reverting, and your willful disregard for the facts without making a counterargument makes you more of a viable position to be banned. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Food and drink

Hello, Spshu.

You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics.
Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. You can also sign up to receive project newsletters and notifications at the notifications list, even if you choose not to join. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

)

References

^ "Time Llife, Volume 1" (PDF). Broadcasting. Broadcasting Publications: 2. February 20, 1978. Retrieved September 27, 2017.
^ "Time Llife, Volume 1" (PDF). Broadcasting. Broadcasting Publications: 3. February 20, 1978. Retrieved September 27, 2017.

Edit warring and reverting well-sourced content

Please (a) stop edit warring at major film studio and (b) stop doing so in such a way that you are deleting good content. I have explained why A24 belongs; you have deleted it without explanation. As for Gaumont and Amblin, we can take that up on the article's Talk page. — DCGeist (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what's it going to be? Are you going to restore A24, or shall I? — DCGeist (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained on you talk page and in edit summary. Please read your own page. a) you are edit warring and b) you are not adding "good content". You are edit per your opinion not sourced information. A source that A24 is an mini-major would get it on in the mini-major table. You do not have one. Any addition would result in reporting you for ignoring the article's talk page (as this type of situation has been discussed) and sourcing requrements. Spshu (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now provided two very clear, very recent sources for A24 on the article's Talk page. Let's see your clear, recent sources that argue for the retention of Amblin and Gaumont. Can't wait to see those! It was very easy for me to source the fact that A24 is a mini-major. Defending the claims for Gaumont and Amblin should be just as easy for you, right? — DCGeist (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Next time you try to proceed as you have here, I will most certainly report you. — DCGeist (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Disney International HD. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You behave this way and force your edits upon others no matter what. Judging by your talk page it's a common thing you do. User 261115 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Disney International HD. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. User 261115 (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:User 261115 (Result: ). Thank you. User 261115 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney India dispute

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! User 261115 (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major film studio

I see you have a history of edit warring on this and other pages. Such behavior is unacceptable. In the present case, multiple editors have now explained to you that your preferred version is unsourced. If you proceed to edit war over this matter, you will be blocked. Time to move on. DocKino (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have shown a source. He choose to ignore it. No, you need consensus. You do see the other's OWN behavior. You need to discussion not issue order. You don't own the page either. Spshu (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is that you act like you own not only this article but many others. I have taken the time to discuss very carefully on the Talk page the reasons for the few arguable edits I have made, and sought to open a discussion about others. That is far from "OWN behavior," as you put it. Just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn't mean they think they own an article. And when multiple people disagree with you, but you refuse to listen, then you're simply projecting your, yes, own OWN behavior. DocKino (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DocKino:, You have not "discuss very carefully on the talk page the reason". You just issue a fiat ("I have reviewed the arguments on both sides and the evidence provided, and it is clear that no one in the industry considers Amblin Partners to be a mini-major." No effort to explain.) and state that you agree that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (DCGeist) is valid. I never said that we could not disagree. I am fine with having disagreements and talking things out. You have said that I can not disagree with you. I did listen to the fact that DCGiest was playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. So, I did listen that you were issuing decisions not discussions, see above. Spshu (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TTTE&StarWarsFan2018's backstory and relationship

Dear; Spshu more you may know me as TTTEFan2017. But I decided to change my name to TTTE&StarWarsFan2018. Remember when you said do not add remove or change content to me. Wikipedia is a place to read or to edit, but what you said to me was mean. I felt like you were trying to ban me from editing it was just an edit, DO NOT TAKE IT TOO SERIOUSLY LIKE YOU DID LAST YEAR I am trying to provide good faith and Trivialist realizes that I can be thanked for editing. WARNING! SO DO NOT TYPE ANYTHING BAD ABOUT ME OR TELL ME TO STOP EDITING. IF YOU DO I WILL BE DISAPPOINTED! APOLIGIZE TO ME ON MY TALK PAGE AND DO NOT SAY PLEASE DO NOT TAKE EDITS TO SERIOUSLY, AND I'M SORRY FOR MY TONE AND I HAD TO TYPE THIS. As for HiT Entertainment the article that you I and others edit will get semi-protected for whatever long. So I'm going to thank you on the last edit you made and the line you said was good faith and it said: that is so you don't have to manual change "years ago". and Trivialist would probably thank you too. That concludes was my backstory. Have any suggestions my talk page is always here you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTTE&StarWarsFan2018 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

XFL

I have reverted your redirect. Firstly the first incarnation the WWF owned 50% and NBC owned 50%. Neither the WWFE or NBC is associated with this so the owners are not the same. WWF went public in 1999, so Vince McMahon's indirect ownership in the league was drastically below 50%. Your comments on similar owners is just plain wrong. Second, if you watch the press conference Vince made it very clear that this is not the old XFL. He considered using a different name but just liked the name XFL which is why he used it, but made it very clear it is not the original league. - Galatz ^Talk 23:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:BRD. You were bold in redirecting, it was undone, you are not to just come back and redirect it again. If you do this again, I will open a case for edit warring. - Galatz ^Talk 23:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz:. So, sources indicated that this is a revival. DreamWorks has multiple ownership structures and business structures and doesn't an article for each. Also, the same with Disney, Marvel, etc. How is the XFL is not the XFL? It is the same brand/name. And Second WP has rules against being a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS. Spshu (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They share the same name but are two separate entity's, its a totally different league to the original with its own set of rules. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are not separate entities as they have the connection of McMahon's ownership. Just because McMahon structured his ownership in the league different. Does a new Marvel Entertainment leap into existence because it went through three corporate entities in the Disney acquisition of the company? As Marvel Entertainment, Inc. (former Toy Biz, Inc.) merged into Maverick Acquisition, Inc. then into Maverick Acquisition, LLC, which was then rename Marvel Entertainment, LLC (on the day that the merge was finalized) while still holding the old Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. (as Marvel Property, Inc.). Original what we consider Marvel Comics when it was retro-known as Timely Comics was over 40 corporations (at same time)!!!! That would be rather disjointed to have to read 40 different article for one basic subject. Spshu (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that Vince McMahon specifically said this is a new league. He made it perfectly clear that this is not a rebirth, its a new creation with the same name. Your example is not comparable. He specifically said the only reason it has the XFL name is 1) he likes the name, 2) he had access to the trademark. - Galatz ^Talk 02:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McMahon did say this was a continuation as quoted in the ESPN article - McMahon makes it clear that he want to restart it at a later point in time. "I wanted to do this since the day we stopped ...". My examples are comparable as Marvel has had different business entities as does the XFL. "2) he had access to the trademark." Tribune Media had an production/distribution division, Tribune Entertainment, back in the 1990s which was shut down (only selling off a few current productions). When Tribune restarted the division, they announced it was a "new division", Tribune Studios. Business always seem to sell that a previous idea is new. Some times since the new leadership is unaware of earlier attempts or to disassociate with the earlier failure of such an unit. Spshu (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You sir, are a bad user. You tried reformatting the Super RTL article, and you even LIED to the entire Wikimedia and Wikipedia communities. For this, I'm going to get you reported to Wikipedia management so that they'll decide your fate. Enjoy your ban. --2607:FCC8:6250:0:791C:7669:4FE9:2A63 (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Larry Levinson Productions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Murder 101 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please stop making disruptive edits to Super RTL.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --2607:FCC8:6250:0:183C:6845:EAC5:2655 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Spshu_reported_by_User:2607:FCC8:6250:0:643B:F6DF:E239:88C2_(Result:_No_violation) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for finding information on Fourth Class Cities. I didn't know they even existed. Criticalthinker (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent find! I had no idea about Fourth Class Cities, and I have a particular interest in local governments, especially here in Michigan where I live. What I would like to nail down is exactly how many cities still hold this status. The article you sourced seems to save four or five, but only gives an example of Yale and Sandusky. I'm also interested in some other information I think you've added. What is the difference between regular charter and special charter, and which predominate? The wiki article seems to say that most cities were transformed into special charters, so I assume that means that original charters are those very early cities (i.e. Detroit)? --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know they exist for a while, just didn't have any sources for them. They are similar to general law villages. Per Organization of City and Village Government in Michigan, a MML Municipal Report, that as of November 2003 (page 46, PDF page 3) there are seven cities under 4th Class City status/charter and 1 special charter. So, that tells you regular/Home Rule charters now prevail. (I believe that Mackinaw Island city is the only special charter (confirmed via their code of ordinance charter is an enacted state law). Prior to 1895, all charters were passed by the legislature as a standard procedure. After 1895 with passage of the 4th Class Cities Act, those cities classified 4th Class Cities (pop. 3,000 and 10,000) got a general law governing them. That and the passage of the Home Rule Act of 1909 that allowed self adoption of charters with no legislative action but governor's approval. Thus those passed by the legislature (pre-1909) were consider special charters, so at that time special charters prevailed. Spshu (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bit confusing, so let me go through this. So prior to 1895, all cities had been incorporated by a special/specific act of the legislature. I imagine then that they were simply refered to during this period as just regular charter cities since there was no other process, so they weren't "special" aside from being specific for each city. Then in 1895, some of these charter cities (with pop. between 3,000 and 10,000) were pushed into a general law category. It makes me wonder what the ratio of 4th Class Cities to Special Charters was at the time of the act's creation? I'd guess at this time was when the charter garnered the moniker "sepcial charters" as there was now another category of cities (4th Class). So then in 1909 with the Home Rule Cities Act when cities could enact their own charters within the confines of that law, all new cities would incorporate under that act and then for reasons I'm unsure of most special charters began converting as did the 4th Class cities, so that today we only have a handful of both.

I wonder why Mackinac Island hasn't gone home rule? I imagine that the act must have something in it that would require it to do something it doesn't want to do, but can't imagine what that would be. I would think it would have something to do with automobiles, but the Home Rules Cities act was completed before that was really an issue. That would be something interesting for me to research...Anyway, if you ever find out how many 4th Class cities are left, you let me know. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the link you posted mentions Fifth Class cities, which are basically a smaller version of Fourth Class cities. But, while they are mentioned, it seems like none exist? I imagine this is because there would be no real benefit in incorporating as such? I think with all this new information that we probably need a subsection under each of the categories/types (township, city and villages) describing each types instead of just mentioning them in a sentence. So, for cities we have: home rule cities, fourth class cities, fifth class cities, and special charters (1). For villages we have: Home rule villages and general law villages. For townships we have: general law townships and charter townships. Really, the same thing for counties where each type is mentioned, but the "optional unified" isn't explained. I asked a question about this in the Talk page, but never really got a response about how the "optional unified" differs from the regular "unified. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTV Communications Software

Hi there, would you be able to check the formatting and wording of UTV Software Communications article. They're the media conglomerate wholly owned by The Walt Disney Company India. The biggest issue with the article is the severe lack of citations and the weird wording that various editors have edited this article. This is a really interesting company and it's a shame that the poor article formatting is damaging this article's credibility. Would you be able to take the time to evaluate it and make the necessary edits please? cheers. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WLNS-TV. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USAF edits

Please follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle on United States Air Force. The information is well sourced, and I would strongly reccomend discussing it on the talk page rather than blanking. Garuda28 (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting

Spshu? Read this: "Do not link to search pages for Wikipedia citations. These pages are not static and change often." All of that links to the search pages. They want us to use this: "On the list of search results the Issue Date "1951-01-17-BC-OCR-Page-0012" is the link to an issue containing your search terms ub YYYY-MM-DD and page order. Click on any link to view the actual page". I don't know how often David and his admin staff check how often we use their content, but they gave us that format for us users to use. That ends the confusion so that Wikipedia doesn't get into trouble. So why did you change that in the first place? King Shadeed March 26, 2018 11:40 EDT.

That's why they gave us this ""1951-01-17-BC-OCR-Page-0012". If you can't follow clear and simple instructions, then leave well enough alone. Simple as that. March 26, 2018 12:00 EDT.

I "Read this", but "This" isn't on americanradiohistory.com website as I already told you (looking at FAQ or home page). There is no "Read this" link. I don't take orders from you. You have not told me one wit were you are getting this "order" from. WP get in trouble how? WP don't have the content here it as is at their website and we are linking to it. It would be Broadcasting/B&C that would go after "David" not WP for having their copyright material.

WP is suppose to link the sources, so these are not WP instructions. If you simple cannot point to these instructions and show that WP endorses them, then stop telling other editors to follow them. Clear and simple, americanradiohistory.com doesn't run, own or have have any authority over WP. Spshu (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, again. Why do you think they told us to use this example: "1951-01-17-BC-OCR-Page-0012". Hmm? March 26, 2018 12:22 EDT.

User:Spshu, this is also being discussed at New York Actuary's talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edit notes

Quick favour, regarding the comments of the edits that you do, you're notes are excessively abbreviated. Said abbreviations can be difficult for some editors to understand. Is it okay if you use full names as opposed to condensed names (unless said article/entity is officially recognized under the condensed name)? not only will it make your edits more clearer, but there's a high enough word count for full sentences now. cheers. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: KMTR

Why do you have to ruin a good article with your style of formatting. I know the DTV transition is in the past, so I left it were it was. I reverted your other edits though. It made the article hard to read. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disney Direct-to-Consumer and International, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rebecca Campbell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Same goes for you. User 261115 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @User 261115: but claiming that I am disruptive because it has been pointed out that you are does not work. I am not the editor making up untrue material based on assumptions at Disney Channel India nor at Disney Channel International HD. Spshu (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still think what I’m saying is not true, even after explaining to you so many times? User 261115 (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need sources not "explaining". Spshu (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Bankster (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flint water crisis 2018

Your recent editing history at Flint water crisis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.TomCat4680 (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the schools removed from Pontiac, Michigan?

I noticed this edit at Pontiac, Michigan. The edit summary does not give an adequate reason why the content was removed. I'd like to restore this...

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

School district has its own article, School District of the City of Pontiac, which is link from the government section. So no needed to be duplicating the school district article in the city's article. Spshu (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this is true, charter schools and private schools are not a part of the school district. Therefore the city article must also talk about those too. In addition the city article should link to the high schools serving the city. (smaller municipalities and communities should also have info on middle and elementary schools) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe:, the charter and private schools were not sourced thus removed. The schools in the district would be linked or cover in the school districts' article. Spshu (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In that case, I usually source from the schools' official websites to confirm their existence. The general guideline on whether something should be sourced is whether it is "likely to be challenged". Often people feel that such school lists aren't likely to be challenged, but they are good to source just in case. For elementary and middle schools, especially of larger cities entirely within the same district, people can just go to the district site, but for high schools it's still good to link to their respective articles.WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Disney International HD. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Plus you ignore what I say to you on the talk page. User 261115 (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Disney International HD, you may be blocked from editing. User 261115 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andromeda (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mutant X (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violating 3RR on Disney International HD

Your recent editing history at Disney International HD shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. User 261115 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Ananich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cherry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Disney–ABC Television Group

Hey there, you don't mind contributing to Talk:Disney–ABC Television Group regarding the merge of Capital Cities/ABC Inc.? It's an outdated discussion and it won't be closed unless there's more than one person who makes a joint decision. Thank you. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marvel Anime, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madhouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Thought you might find this link useful. - ^theWOLFchild 01:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marvel Entertainment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Etihad Stadium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan history

@Spshu: Do you know of the connections between Flint Automobile and Little Motor Car Company and Flint Wagon Works? I see Alexander Brownell Cullen Hardy and Durant were tied up with both of them. Is Flint Wagon Works and Flint Automobile one and the same? I thought I might try to harmonise the two articles. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Wagon Works was a carriage company to start. Flint Wagon Works original brought "Thomas" (error) Buick's business of a garage & a gasoline engine patent to Flint for its farm equipment business and tipped off Durant, who thus form Buick Motor. (source page 774) Wagon Works were then purchased by some of the bankers and other investors that originally backed GM and switched it over to car production but where unsuccessful. Later as the Little Motors article states, Durant took over the Flint Wagon Works and used its operations to start Little Motors and Mason (built trucks). Durand's third run into auto manufacturing was Durand Motors with a Flint car. Durant's last car company, Durant Motors, built a Flint (automobile)]]. So Flint Wagon Works and Flint Automobile probably co-existed. You don't need to ping me on my own talk page, @Eddaido:, notification here is automatically. Spshu (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all that. This is where I'm at right now. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bleecker Street (company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting Super RTL with lies!

Listen Spshu, your edits are nonsense according to me. CLT-UFA merged with Pearson's television division to form the RTL Group, and Buena Vista International Television Investments doesn't exist. Please stop reverting the Super RTL article with lies, otherwise you'll be permabanned from this site.

Westj1211 (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read sources that support the existence of Buena Vista International Television Investments or else you will be "permabanned from this site." Spshu (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Buena Vista International Television Investments simply doesn't exist. You're still violating the 3RR rule on Wikipedia. Don't revert any edits or, as I say, YOU will be permabanned. All of your statements are false. So don't do anything else to me. You're still violating the 3RR rule on Wikipedia. Don't revert any edits or, as I repeat, YOU will be permabanned. All of your statements are false. So don't do anything else to me. If you keep doing this, I'll report you to Wikipedia management. Westj1211 (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2018

←There you go, since you just want to try to rub it in my nose so bad. Just because you project your own faults on me. Instead it will remain as a monument of your poor boorish behavior. --Westj1211 (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request for List of breakfast drinks

You have participated at List of breakfast drinks Therefore, you might be interested in the deletion nomination of the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7:, I contributed to the deletion talk already before contributing to the list. Spshu (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops missed. And PS I think you have an escaped tag somewhere on your talk page. All your thread are small texts. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted archiving

I'm archiving your talk page because it was getting too long. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Mvcg66b3r: you are not as I may manage my talk page as I see fit (WP:UP#OWN. Spshu (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adventure Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney assets

I think the list should be limited to physical assets and businesses. So the Las Vegas Bowl event shouldn't be included, but if, say, there was a Las Vegas Bowl LLC subsidiary of ESPN Events, that could be listed. Trivialist (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a bad example. I meant that it would make sense to only include actual things that Disney owns (i.e., Disneyland) and companies that they own (Lucasfilm Ltd.)). An event like the Las Vegas Bowl is neither of those, so it shouldn't be included. Trivialist (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the IP dddress of your account and permanent blocking

Spshu, once I become an administrator, I will see the IP address and ISP, then block you permanently from all Wikimedia sites, because you don't care about the Super RTL article, only the Broadband TV News article on Super RTL. I WILL ban you for your poor grammar, and irrelevant information from an irrelvant website. DO NOT REVERT THE SUPER RTL ARTICLE. IF YOU DO, I WILL BAN YOU. But in order to ban you, I have to achieve 10,000 edits for this. --Westj1211 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, I assume you already know how completely ridiculous this comment is from beginning to end, but FYI this user is now indefinitely blocked for this and other clueless behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Petunia 5 and Treehouse Detectives in "Hasbro Studios"

Hello! I understand that you deleted the information about Luna Petunia (fifth season) and Treehouse Detectives as (future) Hasbro productions in the "Filmography" section of Hasbro Studios and I admit that I should not add that. I should investigate more and I'm sorry. After writing everything, I realized that the credits of both series did not include the Hasbro logo.

But I think it was unnecessary for you to eliminate everything added about what happened with those series at the time of the acquisition, in the "History" section. In that section it is mentioned that "at the time" of the acquisition, PRBM was in pre-production, but it is also worth noting what happened with the other series.

It would be nice if you could write about the PRSNS hiatus and the premieres of the fifth season of Luna Petunia and the new series Treehouse Detectives, with your own words in a more professional way, since they are Saban productions that were produced before the acquisition and that were released after it became official, those series are now owned by Hasbro and are part of the history of the acquisition as well.

Again, I am very sorry if it causes any discomfort.

I'll wait for an answer, bye!

--Angel135 (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disney's Fairy Tale Weddings & Honeymoons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Father of the Bride (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney streaming service

Hi Spshu, did you mean to undo your own edit at Disney streaming service? Your edit summary makes me think that this may have been a goof. Thanks, and have a good day, Gilded Snail (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amblin Partners

Tell me something. Is Amblin Partners listed here as a studio?

Not hard -- "#10- DreamWorks Pictures: DreamWorks Pictures is a movie studio owned by Amblin Partners. It was founded in 1994 by Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen." But that site is not a RS site, but a fan site. This a partly acturate DreamWorks was reorganized and rename Amblin Partners and the name DreamWorks is now a label of Amblin Partners. Spshu (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there's this. Read the top.

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cinema Center Films (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to The Revengers and Something Big

List of production companies owned by the American Broadcasting Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Jenny and Law and Disorder

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WLNS-TV

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WLNS-TV. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvcg66b3r:, note that two registered editors have chosen and given reason for the information to be removed. Also, that I have used the talk page and have made a RfPP. So pay attention to what is happening instead of templating a regular. Spshu (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Global Road Entertainment. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You've been reverting a lot of edits on the founding date Beasting123 (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Beasting123. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Beasting123 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I gave you a warning, as you have reverted that page 3 times recently. You responded with this: "Do not aid disruptive IP editors nor falsely attack some for removing unexplained and distruptive edits". I do not believe it was disruptive at all. You have edited that article multiple times reverting the same information, and your talk page shows you have a history of it. Beasting123 (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to do this

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. Thank you. Beasting123 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bucky O'Hare My Bad!

I'm ever so sorry. You are indeed correct! Marvel did have involvement in the show. I was only remembering the end of the credits where the logos appear and only Sunbow's was shown and NOT Marvel's But regardless they were in the main set of credits and yes I should have looked at them prior, you made the right call to revert everything to normal. Once again, my bad. Blame failing memory of mine and the sheer incompetence of Sunbow for not including Marvel's logo at the end. D31 (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)David31584D31 (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super RTL

Hi, I'm not a new user. Hence, it is wrong for you to send me templates of vandalism edits where it is clearly not. Please argue the next time you revert me on Super RTL, which is barely understandable and seems to be raw-translated from German, thanks. --Bankster (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bankster: See the warning concerning edit warring on your Talk page. While you may have been trying to improve the article, when your improvements (as you see them) are reverted, you need to start a discussion, not continue reverting content. The warning this editor gave you concerned disruptive editing, which is what you were engaged in, not vandalism, and it is appropriate to apply it to the Talk page of any editor who engages in it. (And with barely more than 3000 edits, you shouldn't consider yourself exempt from any kind of template.) General Ization ^Talk 00:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Spshu, might I kindly suggest that you look into setting up archiving on your Talk page? The size of this page (732 MB+ and 12+ years worth of messages) is really kind of ridiculous, and it makes it somewhat difficult for other editors to review and/or post new messages for you. (Perhaps even somewhat difficult for you.) Just a suggestion. General Ization ^Talk 00:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Rising

I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. Let's wait for some other editors to weigh in before we continue any further. -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since no one else has chimed in, here's a previous discussion that establishes concensus leaning towards credits being an acceptable source. And as stated at WP:PRIMARY, which is discussed in the archived discussion, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." A list of credits is a straightforward list of facts that cannot be misinterpreted. -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no winning with you. I fully cite changes with policy, precedent and a ruling by an unbiased third party on my side, and you revert them anyway. You claim I don't "follow through" (despite me not seeing you do so either), so I try to create a new article for the franchise as a compromise, and you undo everything anyway and continue to try and frankenstein this article into something it isn't. You could just get the page moved to "Marvel Rising", which again would solve the problem completely, but you refuse to do so because YOU'RE the one who won't "follow through". Well you know what? Fine. People like you have always been the worst part of Wikipedia, insisting only "your" version is acceptable and using policy and precedent only when they suit your interests. So I'm not going to play this game. Have fun actively ruining the site, because I'm not interested in being part of it anymore. -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some did respond to the above discussion and they did not agree with the above credit. The follow through was that you were not removing the short's credits that were there before the credit box. The split off or franchise article was under discussion, I reverted to safe you grief if consensus says something else as it was else where. This isn't me "insisting only 'your' version is acceptable and using policy and precedent only when they suit your interests." I have indicate that I have been over ruled else where, thus precedent doesn't suit my interests. This is me being aware that in other cases I have been over ruled with other cite precedents of not starting with a (sub-)franchise article (even with sourcing indicating that it is a "multimedia initiative") but to add the franchise information on the original media article. This isn't a game, I am sorry you don't think I am helping you. But what if you put in alot of work on the franchise article then the consensus comes down to not have that article? Given how little is in the MR:Secret Warriors article that seem likely. Sorry, you feel waiting for a consensus is "actively ruining the site", but that is how it functions around here. Think of it, the franchise is an aspect of the film. Perhaps moving the credit table to the franchise section might help you see that. Spshu (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, you always lie to the wikipedia community. You have bad decisions and an unrealistic history of disruptive editing. You should be banned from Wikipedia and all Wikimedia sites for your actions. Begone. 2607:FCC8:6242:B500:29EB:CF77:B462:D27B (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HBO Films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Picturehouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Your recent editing history at Freaky Friday (2018 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than blindly reverting, why don't you try adding just the production stuff you want to. Yeah, try that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT-y edits

And don't make WP:POINT-y edits with maintenance tags. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall:. I actually some what agree with the assessment as we are arguing about primary sourcing issue. Per WP:NOTPOINTy: "As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their 'point'." Spshu (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Freaky Friday (2018 film)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Esuka323:, you are missing the point about the canvassing that was part of showing that Amaury was disruptive and spoiling for an edit war in canvassing thus reverting him was legitimate (and should not count towards 3rr). Since I did not agree with him Amaury thus ended discussion (so much for BRD being "policy" - it is not - "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks." I still started the discussion not Amuary) and ran off to 3RR because he did not "win", while I continued discussion with him. Amaury met 5 out of 6 signs of begin disruptive (the one sign not met conflicts with another - it is over use of requesting citation needed). Since, he was being disruptive my reverts of him should not be counted. He directly interprets PRIMARY to allow himself to violate WP:V. Therefor the canvassing argument was to undermine Amaury's status as disruptive in this matter and coloring my previous interactions with IJBall and Amaury which was benign as confrontational. So, to say that focusing on canvassing like that was the only issue and you acting like it is too may have under minded the whole disruptive nature of the two of them. I am not the one pretending I did not do anything wrong IJBall feels that he his above reproach loaded with a personal attack "(Undid revision 865550130 by Spshu (talk) - Remove nonsense from an editor with a serious problem...)" in reverting notification of edit warring and IJBall removing notices to Amuary (Remove nonsense - DTtR...)" in reverting a host of notification about his behavior and and yes why I did not follow DTtR. They don't seem to believe there are issue with themselves. And if I just throw myself on the mercy of the administrator that makes it easy for the administrator not to see the bigger view and just punish me, when it "takes two to tango" (edit war).

@EdJohnston:, where are the blocks for Amuary and IJBall - fair is fair. I clearly show Amuary as disruptive and the records show that IJBall also exceeded the 3RR mark and should have been easy to pick up on with out me telling you as it "takes two to tango". Since you did not, here they are:

16:15, 24 October 2018 (Reverted 1 edit by Spshu (talk): Knock it off - you are removing sourcing, etc. (TW)) Which he does himself thus not taking his own advice. The additional source were onerous as being covered in other sources. But they cannot stop to figure that out. See: 16:16, 24 October 2018 immediate partial reversion of his own edit
16:19, 24 October 2018 (Reverted 1 edit by Spshu (talk): And now edit warring. You've already been warned multiple times about this. Knock it off. (TW)) and he was warned about removing sourced information that did stop him this time
14:22, 25 October 2018 (Undid revision 865683393 by Spshu (talk) - Neither tag is valid.) His statement is not enough, where is the support? As this was reverted to due to no reason give & the revert was supported with reasons (Undid revision 865684619 by IJBall (talk) yes 1/2 the sources are Disney (Through various sites) which is primary; notability as no coverage outside of entertainment news websites)
14:57, 25 October 2018 (Undid revision 865684905 by Spshu (talk) - As before: the tags are invalid, and this is a WP:POINT-y edit from a disruptive editor.) pot meet kettle

Edit war notice: 16:24, 24 October 2018
16:32, 24 October 2018 - discussion started by me Spshu (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were warring against two other editors, which should have been a clue that your changes did not have consensus. The word 'canvassing' does not occur in the list of exceptions to 3rr in WP:3RRNO. Nobody should engage in personal attacks, so I'm glad you did not. You're a person with nine edit warring blocks, so you should try to be more cautious in this kind of situation. Misbehavior of others does not excuse your own. You stated above: "Since, he was being disruptive my reverts of him should not be counted." I hope you can understand that this doesn't win you much sympathy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spshu. I hope you take this message in the good faith it is intended, coming from someone who has seen you contribute much to Wikipedia and this community, and still regularly run into disputes with other editors. It seems to me, that over the years, much of your problems come from two places: 1. Believing that comments in edit summaries are sufficient to be discussing an issue. They are no substitute for talk page discussion. (I'm not saying that happened here, just something I've noticed). and 2. Believing that a exception to WP:3RR applies where it doesn't. As you go forward in editing, I'd encourage you to hold yourself to a standard where you don't violate WP:3RR even if an exception applies. If something is so egregious that you think an exception applies, get help from a noticeboard. If you are right, it shouldn't be hard to find someone willing to make the revert instead of you. I'd guess you'll find yourself running into problems a lot less frequently if you do. Best meamemg (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lantern and Weinstein company

hi,

Both are separate companies, and not the same. Hayholt (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Lantern bought the Weinstein company assets and hire their employees thus are not seperate company per WP precedence. The Disney Production, Inc., The Disney Company/Disney Enterprise and Disney Company (and there will be a third Disney Company post-21cFox merger) are treated all the same do to the continuity. Please make your arguments at the AFD for Lantern Entertainment. Spshu (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Howard T. Owens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meredith Corporation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC and A&E (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Spshu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was Marvel Games previously known as Marvel Interactive?

Hey there Spshu. Would you be able to clarify whether Marvel Games was previously known as Marvel Interactive? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Bells

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the talk page or I will take you to the noticeboads. The material has been in the article very a very long time, and as such requires a discussion about itsw removal when the removal is disputed by another editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already there. Does not matter the how long the material has been on the article and this info has been remove before. Spshu (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cup of tea

~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inspire Brands

I don't really feel like opening a DRV, but if you look at the sources provided this is a multibillion dollar company covered by reliable sources therefore passes WP:NCORP also there a concept call consensus through editing both me and SportsFan007 (talk · contribs) have edited this article as a mainspace concept. I understand notability and WP:IAR. Please I kindly ask you reopen a second AfD, this article would not be deleted if I or Cunard (talk · contribs) engaged in the prior AfD. This is notable I don't believe there is a snowball's chance in hell that this will be deleted with an AfD that has more participation. Also

Inspire Brands has new information since the 29 July 2018 AfD closure:

On August 16, 2018, The Wendy's Company announced that it sold its 12.3% stake in Inspire Brands back to Inspire Brands for $450 million, which includes a 38% premium over its stake most recent valuation.
On September 25, 2018, Inspire Brands announced that it was buying Oklahoma City-based Sonic Drive-In for $2.3 billion. The firm expects that the acquisition should be completed by the end of the year.

There may be enough new information that {{db-repost}} does not apply. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportsFan007 has been opposed by me and an IP editor. SportsFan has also improperly removed discussion regarding a split/new AFD. Indicating these events occur nor that it is a multibillion dollar company make it pass NCORP. Spshu (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did remove the split discussion - "13:51, 10 October 2018‎ SportsFan007 (→‎Should the section Inspire Brands be split off?)". Spshu (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This company owns Buffalo Wild Wings, Rusty Taco, Sonic Drive-In and Arby's it is a multi-billion dollar company Arby's is not the correct redirect. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This company owns Buffalo Wild Wings, Rusty Taco, Sonic Drive-In and Arby's it is a multi-billion dollar company Arby's is not the correct redirect. I was unaware you and SportsFan007 had a history I understand differences occur, but please keep it on the talk pages, this is among the most notable companies out there Forbes, NRN, and CNN. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Valoem, and... So? You are suggesting that it is inheriting notability by naming all its units; sorry but WP:INHERITORG indicates that this is not allowed. First you indicate WP:ORGSIG by the size of the company (multibillion dollar company), which isn't allowed and by additional events with out showing that those events's sources are not significant coverage of Inspire Brands.

Your CNN source still partly refers to Inspire as Arby's: "Well, Arby's owner is about to get beefier: It's buying hamburger joint Sonic for $2.3 billion." As does the Forbes article "The Evolution Of Arby's: From Neighborhood Chain To Food Industry Powerhouse" and "With its recent acquisition of Buffalo Wild Wings and the subsequent launch of its new multi-brand restaurant company – Inspire Brands – Arby’s is doing just that." NRN is a niche news source and I don't see where this has any significate coverage of Inspire.

Contest the speedy deletion instead of removing them from the article. Spshu (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu: Arby's and Inspire Brands are separate entities, and separate entities being on the same page makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. SportsFan007 (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

So what that is not the standard for separate articles. Why doesn't it make sense? They are related entities. Go to the tak page at Arby's. Spshu (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Spshu, I was very close to blocking you after reviewing your recent edit history. You have gone well beyond WP:3RR on multiple pages: the only reason I'm not doing so is because it's been over 8 hours since your last revert. If you continue to approach a content dispute in this manner, you are looking at an extended block, possibly without any warning. Your block log is long, and it won't be long before someone blocks you indefinitely: I don't think you want that. Just please stop after being reverted, and try to reach a consensus on the relevant talk page. Vanamonde (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts were in enforcing an AfD and attempts to get them to reach a consensus on the relevant talk page, @Vanamonde93:. I made a RFPP so continual reverts would not occur.

18:13, 27 November 2018 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (→‎Current requests for increase in protection level: Arby/Inspire)
21:59, 27 November 2018 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (→‎Arby/Inspire)
00:59, 28 November 2018 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (→‎Arby/Inspire)
14:12, 28 November 2018‎ Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (→‎Arby/Inspire)

And I have been in discussion on multiple pages due to forum shopping

here: User talk:Spshu#Inspire_Brands
talk:Arby's] since 22:06, 19 November 2018‎
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 28
Ibox categorization discussion at talk:Arby's

I even restored an early attempt at a discussion that was removed by SportsFan007

"Just please stop after being reverted, and try to reach a consensus on the relevant talk page." Since administrators are suppose to be lilly white as a group, none of you seem to understand that if I stop they other side assume they have won and stop discussion. Well, you administrators as you can see are not helpful in that regard. After repeated indication that revert activity against an AFD occur, zippo page protection and threats of blocks. Note the discussion on my talk page by Valoem amounts to ordering me about and indicating that he would WP:canvass (which hurts the consensus process by pinging/bring in Cunard) and forum shopped. Here is my opponent attacking another user for giving him an edit warring message User talk:Serial Number 54129#Inspire Brands and calling it [Vandalism reverted. Perhaps, if administrators start assisting editor that what to be WP:HERE instead of those that want to intimidate other editors.

If you want to go into the block log... You really want to discuss administrator misconduct/disregard do you? Yes, I might have technically violated 3RR in some cases, but with lack of support from administrators what are we suppose to do? As best I can tell the administrator have adopted/group-thinked a battleground mentality based on the 3RR rule by general disregarding RfPPs. Then WP wonders why they are running away editors. Spshu (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcing an AfD is not an exception to the 3RR bright line. If another editor explicitly refuses to recognize the result of an AfD, or if other editors are generally behaving badly, then you need to you need to bring that to admin attention. Also, it isn't our job to try to reach consensus on a talk page. Content disputes are meant to be handled by the community. If a dispute cannot be resolved among the editors at a talk page, an WP:RFC is the way to go (or possibly WP:DRN). Admins are not going to step in. Vanamonde (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. The RfPP explicitly brings up the AfD. "Temporary protection: A prior AFD did not find notability for Inspire Brands, ... A couple of registered editors disregard the AFD and current request for discussion at the talk page (and at times removing prior discussion). Spshu (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)" I did not say that was administrator jobs to reach consensus, just administrators let the edit warring to go on instead of supporting talk page discussion with a page protection. The combative editor will general only show up to the talk page (or they are a hit and run - hit the talk page to issue their fiat then revert - as it was in this case) when a page protection or near 3rr occurs, since administrator do not support talk page discussion via request for page protections. Then some if you don't agree with them at the talk page will hall you off to 3rr AN board & thus force a consensus to the complaining party then even when presenting evidence of their misdeeds the admin pretends that I am asking for sympathy. Plus, the block basically freezes the article in the position of those who while 3rring but complaint and not punished (for that or being disruptive) there for sets consensus to their position. The RFPP is asking for the administrators to step in on behalf of discussion thus allow a discussion to go forward to reach consensus - not for the admin to force consensus but to force discussion. So, admins are there to support a battleground mentality is what you are telling me. The disruptive editor is allow to disrupt with impunity. Spshu (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Full protection is meant to prevent edit-warring, not to take sides in a content dispute. See WP:WRONGVERSION. If the behavior of some editors is so obviously disruptive that admins are justified in reverting their edits after protecting, it is probable that a block is also necessary. We were not at that point here. Yes, there was an AfD, but that close is being challenged; and once again, enforcing an AfD closure is not an exception to WP:3RR. So maybe the other editor gets their way for a while; the fact is if you step back and ask for community input, the policy-compliant version will almost always be implemented eventually. Two editors may ignore an AfD, but editors who respond to an RfC or admins at ANI will not. You just have to be a little more patient. Vanamonde (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment Group, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Buzz and Snap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WKRC-TV; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE

Please do not edit page Marvel HQ or strict action would be taken against you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Social XD (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alpha Flight Special vol2 No1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alpha Flight Special vol2 No1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Stirr logo.jpg

The file File:Stirr logo.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Artists Releasing and United Artists Digital Studios

Can you please get your facts right about United Artists Releasing and United Artists Digital Studios? UA Releasing IS UA Corporation, it's a resurrection of UA as its original self, a film distribution company, and UA Digital Studios is just a SEPARATE company that only uses the name. So UA Releasing is the PERMANENT successor, not UA Digital Studios, which is only a quiet revival of the name. If I'm trying to show you proof here, you need to look at this page. 88.84.156.101 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about you get your facts straight. You are making assumptions. UA Digital Studios was established as United Artists via Justia trademarks on Talk:United Artists and so does Trademarkia. In any regard with dualing UA entities and standard business procedures, the UA trademarks would be held by a MGM/UA entity then could be 'leased' to another party in this case the Mirror company. UA Releasing started as the Mirror distribution joint venture with Annapurna Pictures then renamed when recently expanded to include Orion Picture's films. MIRROR RELEASING, LLC was formed on 10/11/2017 just two months before the announcement. So how is Mirror Releasing UA Corporation? Spshu (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I'm not making it up, you're just getting all the facts so mixed up that you're being inaccurate beyond belief. Mirror was only the name of a SMALLER banner/entity of the MGM/Annapurna distribution joint venture for releasing THIRD-PARTY movies, not the MGM/Annapurna joint venture itself in general. Only one third-party movie was released by the joint venture under the Mirror banner in April 2018. The joint venture itself wasn't even named until February 5th, when it was not only rebranded under the UA trademark, but also merged with MGM's old, abandoned/dormant UA film operations while moving to West Hollywood, so yeah, UA Releasing IS UA Corporation, not UA Digital Studios, which is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the UA film operations and only uses the trademark just like UA Media Group before it. I'm trying to show proof here.

Also, Orion isn't one of the partners in UA Releasing. Who owns Orion? MGM. That's why MGM is releasing Orion's movies through UA Releasing in addition to some of their own movies because they're partners in it with Annapurna, probably owning 50% after Orion's distribution team/staff moved to the new company to join the former Annapurna distribution and marketing teams, plus UA Releasing is pooling MGM's and Orion's distribution resources along with Annapurna's. Orion is retaining their own marketing and creative teams under John Hegeman at MGM.

Plus, that "United Artists Releasing" section needs to be moved to the "History" section as a sub-section, the infobox needs to be modified back to its old self, and the reunion between the UA brand and the James Bond franchise in two decades with the domestic release of Bond 25 needs to be mentioned. 88.84.156.100 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror Releasing LLC is register in Delaware. (File Number: 6527297, Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 10/11/2017). The entity was designed as a white label operation, thus its name would not be use on the joint venture members', MGM and Annapurna, releases but on third party releases only. And they would not select a business name that would conflict with an existing business entity. The Formation Date was before the announcement of the MGM-Annapurna joint venture. Here is a filing with the State of California showing that Mirror Releasing LLC is based at Annapurna's offices and its managers are Margaret Ellison and Gary Barber, heads of Annapurna and MGM at the time. So it was named before February 5th, it was just not prominent. Where are you getting that "also merged with MGM's old, abandoned/dormant UA film operations while moving to West Hollywood, so yeah, UA Releasing IS UA Corporation,"? No such information has come forth. "not UA Digital Studios, which is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the UA film operations and only uses the trademark just like UA Media Group before it." But trademark is your supposed proof that UA Corporation (which is not the original UA by the way) is UAR, but that would make UA Digital Studios and UA Media Group both UA.

I know who owns Orion. If MGM's ownership of Orion was the decided factor then Orion's films would have been distrusted by Mirror from the beginning. There are other senses of partnerships, so in this case it is that Orion using Mirror/UAR as its distributor instead of its in house operations (which is being merged/pooled with Mirror's) since being renamed. MGM only has international distribution operations. They considered starting up their own but found Annapurna's distribution department to be what they would do and hire, thus the joint venture. Spshu (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of...UA Media Group was absorbed into MGM's TV division in 2015, UA Digital Studios just borrows the trademark under license from UA Corporation (even though it was registered by the former) and is COMPLETELY SEPARATE under MGM, UA Releasing IS a resurrection of UA in general and is actually UA Corporation (again, read these links if you don't believe me), MGM doesn't have international distribution operations anymore except in a few countries and in television and digital media ever since they emerged from bankruptcy (they formed an international sales operation for certain movies at that time), and for the last time, Mirror is the name of an OLD BANNER/SMALLER ENTITY that MGM and Annapurna used for releasing THIRD-PARTY MOVIES ONLY, NOT the original name of their joint venture IN GENERAL. The joint venture wasn't even named until February 5th, and it was merged with the UA film operations on that day. Get it through your thick head and read the sources and links I posted here correctly. 88.84.156.102 (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know what happened to UAMG - I have edit the article 501 times. You have shown nothing that show "UA Digital Group just borrows the trademark under license from UA Corporation". You show trademarks as your proof but that is no more than UA Media Group. Yes, it is the name of the joint venture was a white label operation for MGM and Annapurna. Only when the joint venture release another production company's films did they use the joint venture's name. OK then if you think that Mirror is separate from joint venture, who head up the Mirror 3rd party releasing entity and who head up the joint venture releasing entity? Spshu (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MGM only set up the digital company from scratch and not from UA's ashes except for the name. And Mirror was just one of the banners of the joint venture, not its original name in general. Before you ask again, it was managed by the same distribution people who managed Annapurna's old distribution arm and assisted on MGM's theatrical releases through it. It wasn't a white-label operation, just a separate releasing entity under the joint venture, but it only ended up releasing one movie (The Miracle Season). 88.84.156.101 (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, this dude is not worth talking to. See WP:LTA/NS. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heads up, NS, was some one that got me block and EdJohnston and other editors having been informed about the sock tricker, would even bother to revert the block I got. And I had to to file the first sock report (at least listed at your wlink). And because of "my record", EdJohnston is threatening to ban me for any little error. Heck I got block by him since I was reported for not agreeing with the other editors. And laying out that they were disruptive and he did not act, he basically did not have any sympathy for me. I did not ask for any, I just asked him to act fairly as administrator and block the other editors clearly showing disruptive behaviors. Now, I have run into them again (and he did not care that one recruited the other), they can enact their own consensus at will. Spshu (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/* List of assets owned by Disney */ new section

FYI, nothing ever said that Fox Entertainment Group ceased to exist. Therefore, we are listing it as a Disney subsidiary. Good day. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you’ve listed a source that states that FOX EG is dead, this no longer applies. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on A Cinderella Story (film series); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving talk page

You have over 300 discussions on your talk page. Would you consider archiving your talk page and just limiting it to the last 12 months' worth of discussions? It's hard and unwieldy to navigate such a large talk page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific Private Limited

Hi, To prevent an edit war, Please take to AfD or the article talk page if contest it's notability.

Thanks, RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 19:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1: - I am already being attacked for taking another article to AfD twice. The discussion has been started at Talk:Walt Disney Direct-to-Consumer and International#The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific Private Limited. And taking to the talk page does not "prevent an edit war" as the other side will assume they are right and will only show up when getting to that point. Spshu (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, ~~Please don't revert what they're doing and await the TP discussion,~~ Please refer behavioural complaints to a dramaboard. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 20:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should remain but if he reverts again got to WP:AN3 rather than revert and get an uninvolved opinion. If I spot any continued dispute without further attempts to discuss, I'll be reporting it. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 20:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1:, The 'drama board' assume I am guilty for what ever reason (and I am not here to get any one in trouble. And when it was really needed with a stalker - no action was taken against that editor - not even went he edit warred with me just in an attempt to get me permanently banned). I was report last time for not agreeing with the opposing editors but discussing the matter with them (ignoring the fact that consensus is them making attempt to proof it to me), while they were removing sources and being disruptive. Administrator block me and said in response to full laid out to the point that no one could refute that they were disruptive against WP that the administrator hand no sympathy for me. The were bold and they were suppose to take it to a talk page not me. If I don't revert they assume what they have done is alright and don't have to go to the talk page.

Dispute resolution will not kick in until sufficant discussion has occurred. Which usually doesn't occur. Spshu (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch the page and if it continues report him myself. Do not revert further though. Contact someone for a second opinion: May I suggest an IRC Channel as you'll get quick help and I'm in a few so feel free to get someone to /msg me (due to spam unless you register with NickSrv you can't PM me.) RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 20:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

jump

jump off😡 Esaïe Prickett (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spshu reported by User:King Crimson the Third (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The AN3 complaint has now been closed with warnings to both parties. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fox 2000 Pictures, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Division and Brad Simpson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WJLA-TV

You didn't have to revert the whole thing, just put that section back. You're just like BlueboyLI. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disneynature Movies

Where are your claims that Blue and Dolphin Reef are different movies? You're just making the page more confusing that it already was. Luigitehplumber (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LTPHarry:, the source indicates that it is an original film, doesn't indicated that Dolphin Reef is Blue with a different narrator. There is no source that that the two are the same movie. Spshu (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still classify it as confusing as, well have you even looked at “both” films? Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the major film studio edits.

So I left a message in regards to my edits via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Edit-warring at Template:Film Studio.--King Crimson the Third (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop constantly reverting

Okay, this is getting out of hand here. We asked you time and time via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film again to stop reverting my edits via the Major film studio article. What you may be doing considering your childish behavior may be considered editing and/or reverting war and you will be blocked just for that.--King Crimson the Third (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @King Crimson the Third:, you did not "asked you time and time via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film again to stop reverting my edits via the Major film studio article." You have acted uncivilly there and here by claiming "childish behavior" on my part. When you have been block for edit warring at template:Template:Film Studio. You were referred to the talk page multiple times: 1 May 2019 6 May 2019 9 May 2019 18 April 2019 Edit warring 6 May 2019 edit warring notice. To date, you have not posted at the topic Talk:Major film studio#Other units and other issues that has been up since April 18, 2019. You are being constantly revert for continually adding in errors. Spshu (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that is being immature with your actions. You're a sarcastic freak. --GroupJWbackup (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preach. Nice to see I’m not the only one who’s called him out on this behavior. You constantly think you’re always right in a “never my fault” kinda way. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Prospect Studios, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain Blood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

In regards to your recent revert on the 20th Century Fox Animation page, was it necessary? Because when I edit that page; as well as major film studio; you just revert my edits and allegedly used them as unsourced. This confuses me. I used all my sources and wording, and at the same time fixed the errors; but yet you revert my edits. I'm curious, have you tried looking at the original edits before reverting?--King Crimson the Third (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TCFHE under Disney DTCI

Evidence for this statement

TCFHE page states “a wholly-owned subsidiary of Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment.”

It is listed on the table on the DTCI page as a transfer from 21CF

It is also listed on List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company and template:Disney

Think about these things before changing it back. And also admit your wrongdoing while you comment on this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wikipedia article is not "Evidence". Demanding some to "admit your wrongdoing while you comment on this section." There is discussion about your type of misdoings at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney#Fox merger issues. TCFHE since the merger could have been left at 20CF, left at 20CF during its closing down, move to DTCI independently of Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment (with out being closed down) or as you suggest that the unit was placed under Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. Spshu (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Davison, Michigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fox Networks Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Setanta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fox Networks Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fox Networks Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RCN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telepictures Distribution

Are there any sources that Turner Program Services renaming it into Telepictures Distribution in 1996 when the Turner-Time Warner merger completed. --2600:1700:4300:2C8F:1827:DE69:13D1:2B4 (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the source: "telepictures%20distribution" here. But looks like it was actually formed in 1995, not 1996 when Turner Program Services merged with Telepictures to create Telepictures Distribution. --2600:1700:4300:2C8F:6CF9:18A4:6D33:A6F0 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HBO Max, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mystery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On WLNY-TV

Why'd you have to revert the whole thing? Just correct the items in question. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvcg66b3r:, why do you enter some many errors that need to be corrected? And still continued to do so after being correct (usually) by me multiple times? Spshu (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu: On the "Spring" part, the station is in the Northern Hemisphere, so Northern Hemisphere terminology is used. Either way, I didn't do the "Sping" part. If you can find an exact date, put it in. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disney Theatrical Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Devil Wears Prada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting a favor

You've reverted an editor (CCVolk23zx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) on some media articles. Please invite them to a discussion on any article talk page which you have taken issue with them previously. Also, if you have info that demonstrates trolling or vandalism on their part, please let me know. Thanks

Animated films based on Marvel Comics

Should we separate the films into theatrical, TV and direct ot video? A lot of templates seem to do that.★Trekker (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion epidemic on the Disney Parks, Experiences and Products page

Edit history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Disney_Parks,_Experiences_and_Products

Someone decided to add in promotion for themselves or their favorite vlogger(s) in the attractions section and has caused a back and forth contest between other vloggers and/or their fans.

The unrelated/unsourced section has been removed for now but will likely be back. Throwawaybutnotrlly (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WLAJ reverting

Stop reverting MY edits on WLAJ. It is actually really irrevelant. REALLY. REALLY. IRREVELANT. STOP. REVERTING.THIS.

OR ELSE MVCG66B3R WILL REVERT YOUR EDITS AND BLOCK U. CentralTime301 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disney Music Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page D23 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WLAJ; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WYTU-LD

"removed information not directly related to WYTU from info box, removed unsourced §" Then there should be separate articles on the Rockford and South Bend stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you recently removed content from WISN-TV without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at WISN-TV. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CentralTime301 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WLAJ-TV

What "facts" are you talking about? I'm just following the MOS and Mrschimpf's suggestions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:PacProFootball Logo.png

The file File:PacProFootball Logo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Superseded by vector version

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Masum Reza^📞 09:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channels Worldwide

Hi, regarding this edit, how exactly is the image «full of errors»? The French channel's coverage depicted on the map was extracted from satellite provider Canal+ Horizons, a Francophone TV operator in Africa that carries French-language TV networks in its offering; that includes children channels like Disney Channel France. You can even check by yourself using the programming guide from the TV provider and compare it with the Metropolitan French counterpart operator also broadcasting the same channel. This is also true for coverage in French territories outside of Europe (New Caledonia, French Guyana, Martinique); as those territories are French, they receive French channels, including this one in French TV providers such as Canal+ Caraïbes for the French Caribbean that also operates in Haiti since 2015 (thus also receiving Disney Channel France along with French kids channels such as Gulli) or Vini in French Polynesia, which also carries the same Francophone networks.

If you have any questions about the map, ask me --Bankster (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bankster:, comparing programming guides is original research, violating WP:NOR. It has addition original research with have your imaginary channels: Disney Channel Central Europe, Disney Channel Eastern Europe and Disney Channel Europe, Middle East and Africa )(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney XD (Europe, Middle East and Africa) (2nd nomination) and Talk:Disney Channel (Europe, Middle East, and Africa)#Merg content from Disney Channel (Albania)- this should ring a bell about your original research). This map doesn't match up to the research material at the article. The UK & Ireland version broadcasts in Albania, Estonia, Turkey, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Poland, yet you instead indicate that the local channel broadcasts in English. Spshu (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu: excuse me, how are those channels imaginary in any way? They do exist and they cover specific areas. The links you provided prove nothing to your point. The map matches the available feeds in Europe and the rest of the world by practical terms, not by an incorrect licensing list like MAVISE that doesn't reflect Disney channels' coverage in Europe. The UK feed is only receivable in Ireland outside Great Britain. Turkey receives a separate Disney Channel with an English secondary audio track. Iceland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia receive the Nordic version with English and Russian tracks enabled. Italy, Portugal and Poland have their own localised channels, it is not believable they're receiving a separate localised variant just in English as MAVISE lists it. The local channels do broadcast in English in a separate track, as every other Disney channels do everywhere in the world, even in Latin America where I come from. --Bankster (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They violate NOR. The links show that you will fight for original research channels that don't exist. Those links show that YOU don't provide any thing to support those channels. MAVISE is a governmental list with data from the licensing authorities. How is your opinion above that of the licensing authorities on WP? Spshu (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MAVISE can list whatever they want, however they do not represent actual feeds organisation in Europe by any practical means. Those links I added here actually prove the distribution of the French Disney Channel in French territories and Africa. I'm sorry but I'm going to add that map again, cheers. --Bankster (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes & Icon

Please go to talk page of the entry in re the reference to Hercules and Xena. I decided to initiate a dialogue. Dgabbard (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits in WLAJ

Why did you have to reverts edits made by some users on WLAJ a few months ago? Is it because of WP:MOS? Or is it because you want to edit it your way? Main CentralTime301 page and talk 19:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just because of WP:MOS. Ibox is formatted as such: "Field name/colspacing/field value", to follow that for subfields: "subfield: value" not "value (subfield)". What does DT2 refer to as many stations use WNEM-TV5 and clipped as TV5. As, DT has replaced TV on many stations, DT2 would indicate the station's channel number is 2, when in the case of WLAJ is 53. To refer to subchannels it is useless, as stations may assign any thing to the PSIP. WLAJ uses WLAJ-DT for both subchannel. So, DT2 thus refers to what? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations/Archive 10#Station slogans indicates that local variants of network slogans should not be inserted misleadingly as the subchannel slogan as is being done with the CW's slogan at WLAJ. Spshu (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 835.9 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you.--IanDBeacon (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguated links

Just to let you know, Spshu, Viacom is now a disambiguation page. So when you link to the company, the way you did at A&E Networks, please use:

[[Viacom (2005–present)|Viacom]]

Thank you for your edits and for your support in this! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 22:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I placed an archive bot on top of your talk page, because it was getting long and needed archiving (see here). Take their advice and please don't take it off. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not authorize you to put a bot on my talk page. Spshu (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mvcg66b3r, place an archive bot on your talk page because it is long and needs archiving. Cheers! Central Time 301 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Your recent editing history at WLNS-TV shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cheers! Central Time 301 19:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Spshu reported by User:CentralTime301 (Result: ). Thank you. Cheers! Central Time 301 19:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: making serious mistakes on WLNS-TV. Cheers! Central Time 301 20:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI reporting on you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User talk:CentralTime301. Cheers! Central Time 301 20:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spshu, this admin does not feel that you have done anything wrong at the WLNS-TV article or at User talk:CentralTime301. I certainly feel that you raise legitimate concerns about compliance with the MOS, and I encourage you to continue discussing policy- and MOS-related concerns about the article at Talk:WLNS-TV. Given the recent interactions that CentralTime301 has had with you, it may be a good idea to avoid their user talk page for a while until things cool down. Obviously, if something so beyond the pale happened that you had to file a case at WP:ANI or another noticeboard, then leave the required template, but I suggest nothing beyond that. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have this page on my watchlist, so I will see any messages left here for you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Future Avengers

Look, I agree there's at least a discussion to be had about whether it needs at article, but can you at least stop reverting to the old version on Marvel Anime? It looks like it was written by a five year old and doesn't have any English sources, whereas I at least pulled from pages WP considers reliable like ANN and Crunchyroll. If you HAVE to do it, at least merge the new version in instead of leaving it a broken mess. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Verve Records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove Monterey Media from Template:Film Studio?

Title--Esaïe Prickett (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See its template's talk page which would mention that the whole template was considered for deletion. To save it, I remove a lot of companies. As for Monterey Media, it suffers from notability issues, all major media articles (NY Times, LA Times, Rueters, etc.) deal more with the film than being signification coverage of the company. Spshu (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Spshu, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
★Trekker (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

December 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Deep fried okra 18:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notice

Based on your interest in this issue, you are invited to comment at Talk:WNGH-TV#RfC about TV and radio station style variances. Thanks. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Crossroads Village (Michigan)

On 28 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crossroads Village (Michigan), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Crossroads Village in Genesee County, Michigan, has a narrow huckleberry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crossroads Village (Michigan). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Crossroads Village (Michigan)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WJLA-TV; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for [39]! 192.101.255.184 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Biography (TV program) into A&E Networks. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Diannaa:. I am the author of the information about the 2017 revival at Biography that was copied into A&E Networks. See [771700594 and 771869875. I was surprised that I did not copy over the information to A&E Networks after I added to the Bio article.

I understand the rules - for example Mackinac National Park and Mackinac Island State Park, which I recently added the national park information to the state park article using different sources - in order to drop the primary sources - thus I did not copy the national park article information to the state park article and solely wrote the information from the secondary sources. Spshu (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is getting to be way too big

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 854.4 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you.— Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Away VS Home

Hi, I saw that you changed the (home to right) standard in the xfl 2020 season and the website you used as a reference did not do that but did a winner to the left and loser to the right, example: BATTLEHAWKS 15, RENEGADES 9. Here the home is on the right. That is why I unfortunately had to revert your edit and keep the american standard of away to the left and home to the right. Sorry for the inconvenience. Mifoi123 (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mifoi123:, home to right is standard in schedule list for upcoming games "East @ West" not for completed games. The table standard is home left and away to the right. In text (or table if organized that way winner - loser), winner left and loser right. The local paper will list local team then opposing team. "The East team lost 19 to 39." or "... won 39 to 19." I have never seen it this way until the XFL season article. Spshu (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disneynature: Dolphin Reef

Your recent editing history at Disneynature shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please stop editing the Dolphin Reef information against its article's information. --JN95 (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend reading the following wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_Reef_(film)

The discussion continues on the specific Talk page of the entry. Regards --JN95 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO, you did not read. Spshu (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to moderate the tones and participate in the discussion on the disneynature talk page as required by the regulations. Having said this I repeat for the umpteenth time that the page shows in all the films the official first release dates and not those in the USA. I invite you again (for the second time) to read the Dolphin reef page. You will find it written that it is a 2018 film that premiered in theaters in France. Last thing: the wikipedia rules provide for replying to another user's discussion page to messages and not your own. Regards.--JN95 (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JN95:, you invite me to "moderate the tones", when you are the one that has NOT read the Dolphin_Reef_(film) in changing the US release information to match the French release information!?!?!?!? You are the one with a "tone" come back like you are here to commmand me. Wikipedia rules do NOT require " for replying to another user's discussion page to messages and not your own. Regards." Spshu (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will no longer reply here and if I still notice these attitudes that are not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, I will be forced to report to the administrators. Cheers.--JN95 (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that no one wants to command you, it is only a question of correcting an incorrect part of a voice you have contributed to. It's part of the rules of the game and I don't see why it should warm you up so much.--JN95 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JN95:, Because you don't know how to act. You did not even wait a day and declare that I ignored you "umpteenth time". That is the attitude that isn't "keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia". This is a volunteer activity and to badger individual because they did not report on your scheduled (with under a day - all of 10 hours) to the talk page of the article isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. You declare you know whether or not I read an article. Spshu (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disney–ABC Domestic Television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lost (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: KFSN-TV

You reverted the whole thing, thus reverting my corrections. Just fix the stuff you think needs fixing. Also, please archive your talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bob Chapek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studios (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Cyberlink420 (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you recently removed content from KSHV-TV without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvcg66b3r:, do not leave false edit summary and user warning. If you do not like an edit do not claim some one did some thing wrong. Spshu (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of management of The Walt Disney Company

Hello. I noticed you want to change up the format. That's fine as long as you keep EVERYONE that is on the list. If you don't, I will remove you from editing this page. Cytkory

Your recent editing history at List of management of The Walt Disney Company shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please stop editing the List of management of The Walt Disney Company information against its article's information.Cytkory (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FUCK YOU! Cytkory (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back and I have calmed down, but please explain to me how an official press release from Disney is not a good source. Also, you don't have to undo everything to make it better in YOUR eyes. I appreciate where your coming from, but I don't want to restart this argument again. Cytkory (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are stripping out better sources. Second, press releases are consider OK but poor sources. Plus a line needs to be draw as to what to include, so it is not overall detail and difficult to maintain. So, I generally drawn it at what is covered in the media not press releases. Spshu (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there are a LOT of Wikipedia pages with press releases as sources. Why aren't stalking those sites? Cytkory (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A this is volunteer effort, I don't answer to you. I can monitor every thing nor be every where. Also, some people take "should rarely use" that it is absolutely allowed. There is the concept of "undue weight" plus drawing a line so the list does not fall afowl of NOTDIR with having every little low ranking "third regional junior managing vice president" listed. Spshu (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's no excuse to swap out perfectly fine sources like press release coming DIRECTLY from Disney. Plus, you didn't get rid of ALL press releases from Disney. I'm not telling which ones. Can we please stop this now? Cytkory (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, there was no excuse for you to swap out perfectly fine (and considered better) sources like news article for press releases. YOU started this. You did not even want sources remember. So when are you going to stop removing the preferred sources? Again, you are brushing aside NOTDIR. It takes all of two seconds to search and fine a news article. Spshu (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Documentaries redirect

Hi! I noticed you've undone my edit to Sky Documentaries and reverted back to the redirect? I'm just wondering why that's been done - and by the way, the redirect was broken as it is to a section which isn't on that page. I've fixed the redirect. --Tvcameraop (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject needs to meet notability (Wikipedia:Notability) not just that it exists. Spshu (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, makes sense. It would be helpful if that was mentioned in the edit summary. Tvcameraop (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in March 9 Edit summary. Spshu (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did You Undo My Edit?

What Do You Mean By "Unexplained"?

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A&E Networks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Orchard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not fall into the temptation to edit-war, please

Hey, I really need you to be on your best behaviour with the List of management of The Walt Disney Company issue, leading by example rather than being revert-heavy. Please use the talk page. If the other editor doesn't participate in discussions in say, a week, make your move, and if they revert without discussion, leave the article the way it is, and then come see me or another admin. You don't want to get caught up in sanctions. You might also look for ways to make smaller changes that might not be as controversial, so that any specific changes the other editor disputes can be identified, unless they're just blanket-reverting all of your edits. Obviously it's not cool for someone to stonewall changes to articles while refusing to discuss. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. I identified another issue there. And he has again reverted. Spshu (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also do not respond to their personal attack on my talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Productions

Just because PlayStation Productions will release films and is part of the Sony family doesn't mean it's part of the SPMPG. The founders of PlayStation Productions will report to the heads of SIE. It's not acceptable because it's not part of SPE. Show a proper reference for it and stop vandalizing Wikipedia.

173.93.207.154 (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one claim that its list requires that the unit be apart of SPE. Marvel Studios for about five years was independent of Walt Disney Studios with in Marvel Entertainment (2010-2015) after TWDC purchased Marvel. We would be re amiss in not listing Marvel Studios as a film unit of Disney given its box office domination when a Marvel film is released. Marvel was intended to feed the Disney Studios distribution division after the Paramount distribution deal ran out (there were other reasons) then bought out. Do we really want to nick pick (beyond theatrical or DVD releasing films) nor did we want to duplicate corporate structure (as I have argued previously on the article's talk page). The Hollywood Reporter article you cite indicates that PlayStation Productions will distribute through Sony Pictures. Spshu (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does say that but is PlayStation Productions a film label of SPE?2606:A000:ED80:4500:7191:1A5F:B2BA:E936 (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonfall

Please stop putting unimportant information about producing partners into the article. You can place a source next to the production companies in the infobox but it's not vital to know who's shopping the film. Rusted AutoParts 19:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts:, Huh? There is the business of funding and distributing the film. If they were not shopping the film then it would not be made. Thus it is vital. This is not the entertainment-pedia. Stop striping sources out of cite forms. Spshu (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not important that AGC Studios and CAA Media Finance helped shop the film. It's not important who raised equity for the film. What's important is when it started development, who's been cast, directing, etc, when it starts filming and where (which you keep removing when you revert). Like I said those sources can be put next to the production teams in the infobox, so they're there. But as for the Production section, no. Not vital. Rusted AutoParts 19:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts:, Yes, it is per MOS:FILM the "Production" section may include: "Development: development of the concept and script, as well as the securing of financing and producers". Spshu (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Key word “May”. The vast majority of film articles aren’t devoting article space to the nitty gritty of film brokering. Because it’s not important detail. It being set up at Universal then being dropped is important to its production history. What isn’t important is “CAA helped broker the deal”. CAA help broker multiple deals, it doesn’t make it essential the reader knows this. I’m gonna drop this for now as I don’t want this to become an edit war Bu at the very least could you readd that it begins filming in Montreal? You keep taking it out despite it being sourced. Rusted AutoParts 19:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FilmStudio

According to Template:Film studios, there seems to be some questionable edits, such as two studios owned by the same company in the same template. Example would be that Warner Bros. also owns Bad Robot Productions and Spyglass Media Group and yet they are in the same template as with Warner Bros. Also IMAX Filmed Entertainment redirects to the IMAX article. I recommend you read [[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates# Wikipedia:Reliable sources or Wikipedia:Navigation template.--98.182.134.231 (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Robot is not owned by Warner Bros, they just are know to have a production deal Variety: "Also unclear is whether WarnerMedia landed an investment stake in Bad Robot, though multiple sources say that's a distinct possibility." Second, while WB took a stake in Spyglass, since it is not a majority or controlling stake, Spyglass is considered to be independent of WB (Lantern would be consider Spyglass's parent). Paramount purchased a 49% stake of MiriMax, since BeIn Media owns the other 51%, BeIn Media is considered MiriMax owner/parent not Paramount. Re: Imax, I did not change that. Don't drop all errors at my feet. Spshu (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember

When using an archived material of The Hollywood Reporter (since 2006), Variety (since 1991) or The LA Times or The NY Times, we need to check your citations. Should I use VarietyUltimate, then check to see the text. --172.127.114.25 (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please no

Can you please stop reverting my edit on WLAJ? It is considered disruptive and if you try to keep reverting these edits, I will have to file a report on WP:AN/3 about you. 107.242.113.16 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picturemill/20th Century Studios

I was telling the truth on the logo for 20th Century Studios. Picturemill animated it and it was on the picturemill's website reel. --Rod14 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Time Llife, Volume 1" (PDF). Broadcasting. Broadcasting Publications: 2. February 20, 1978. Retrieved September 27, 2017.

[2] "Time Llife, Volume 1" (PDF). Broadcasting. Broadcasting Publications: 3. February 20, 1978. Retrieved September 27, 2017.

[1]

[2]