User talk:ChaosMaster16

ChaosMaster16's Talk Page     My toolbox New page patrol Messages     Harry Potter All of those changes were justified. Please don't revert edits because you don't like them. BOVINEBOY2008 14:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC) How are they justified? My main concern is with yor film date. The mos for film states that we should use start date. There is no reason to put anything in parenthasis either, especially since the revision I reverted to is more widespread (before you edit it with the other version). The infobox is a list and shoulnt have parenthasis. If you keep the edit, I would appreciate if you reapply start date, until your film date can be confirmed as justifiable. Also, maybe editing the other HP articles would be helpful? I'm working on an iPod now, so it would be harder for me to do that. Thanks. ChaosMasterChat 14:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Film date uses start date. I'm about to bring it up on the project page. And you edit summary only said you reverted my edits, so maybe leave more accurate edit summaries (not that I'm the best at it ;) ). BOVINEBOY2008 14:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry. The iPods a pain in the rear lol. And I'll contribut to the discussion if you want me to. ChaosMasterChat 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Of course! I probably won't put it up right now, maybe later tonight. BOVINEBOY2008 14:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Do you think it will be possible to add an "Novel By" option to a film infobox that we can add addtionaly to the "story by" feild? And where would a good place to bring it up be? ChaosMasterChat 20:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I think it was being discussed, but the conversation has sort of died. The whole change to the writer parameter is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox film#Writier Parameter and there are suggestions for a "Based on" field. You could try to give your suggestion there. It is a novel to read through, though. BOVINEBOY2008 17:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC) File:Catherine hardwicke twilight.jpg Hello. You contested the (not-so-)speedy deletion of this image giving the reason: "No other image can be found. No other description can be found. Image helps the article." If you have a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content, you'll see that it talks about images being replaceable, but that doesn't mean that they have to be replaceable now. Replaceable by an enterprising someone with a camera is just fine. Hope this makes sense, if not, let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Your Third Opinion Request for Talk:List of V (2009 TV series) episodes Hi there! I have removed your request for a third opinion about Talk:List of V (2009 TV series) episodes from the request list, because there appears to be at least 4 editors now involved in the dispute across multiple pages, which is generally beyond the scope of WP:3O. It looks like there's plenty of discussion going on, but if you would like further help solving your dispute, I suggest looking in to opening a request for comment. Thanks, Mildly MadTC 02:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Straw Poll It may be appropriate, but right now it seems like we can easily look at the viewpoints from everyone's that been involved and see where they stand on any given issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The Vampire Diaries Should me move that same prose information to the incubator? Jayy008 (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Let me take a look. I don't think we should have that added to the season page, honestly. That's just duplicating a section three times on three separate articles. ChaosMasterChat 19:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC) The DVD releases are on Season pages in general, we can't dispute that. All I'm saying is that it should be in prose as well. Jayy008 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Melissa & Joey episode production codes About finding sources for the production codes, I cant find any authentic internet links. But since you keep removing the codes even though I already said I got them from my On Demand service, I'll just leave the page like that. I just thought that I would add the codes to show that ABC Family airs the episodes out of order unlike their other original shows on the network. QuasyBoy 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Smallville No, I think that they set designers just redressed the building which made it look differently. Before, all you ever saw really was the reception area and then the room that Lana kept all her computers. Chloe utilized the room in front of the computer room to do all her "sessions" with the meteor freaks. I think that Chloe dismantled the Isis Foundation after the Davis incident, and then moved into the clocktower at the end of season eight as a commemoration of Jimmy and what he sacrificed for her. As for Green Arrow. In season 7, when Black Canary shows up she reveals Oliver's secret identity to Lois when she shatters Oliver's secret room doors with her canary cry. As for the Fortress. It was rebuilt off screen early in season 8, sometime after Clark and Lois get sucked into the Phantom Zone. Then it went dark when Brainiac infested it. Then it was "reawakened" off screen between season 8 and season 9. That answer any questions?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Hellcats Hello. What did you mean with "lets wait for the finals tonight from pifeedback, please". Sorry, I didn't understand :] Thanks for all your help on Hellcats-related articles. Decodet (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Here's last nights figures from PIFEEDBACK I can't work it out. We have to put the mean number? or something? Help Jayy008 (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Usually around 6-8pm ET they post the final ratings "un-inflated". Even though the overnight numbers for "Hellcats" is 2.99 million, it can easily fall to 2.50 million or rise to 3.50 million easily. In other words, its adjusted. I hope that helps a bit. ChaosMasterChat 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Hey, you said the section "Broadcast" needs expansion but how can we expand it since there are no information to add there? It has nothing confirmed about Hellcats' broadcast in other countries excluding the ones already mentioned as far I know... Decodet (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Yep yep, I get it. I don't know where to find the final numbers though. Will you point me to the website for future reference? Are you going to add Hellcats final numbers? Jayy008 (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, you already have. But the TVByTheNumbers source lists it still as 2.99 million, why is it 3.02 on the page? Even with rounding up it's 3.00? Jayy008 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC) TravisYann posts the final numbers. Occasionally Tvbythenumbers would re post his forum post, but unfortunately, they haven't done that these past two days. Travis's source is directly from Nielsen Media (the people who make TV ratings possible), and unfortunately again, final ratings are not usually posted (especially with CW shows) on reliable cites. Here is Travis's post for Hellcats. If you post Pifeedback as a source, make sure you click the left hand corner "note" icon to link directly to a post; it wouldn't be wise to link a whole forum as a source, as they are unreliable. ChaosMasterChat 01:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC) It's a forum, those are not reliable. "its not a forum, please actually click on the link", "it wouldn't be wise to link a whole forum as a source, as they are unreliable" So it's not a forum but it is, and linking to it is not reliable but it is? Xeworlebi (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Its TravisYann's post, which is the only source for the final numbers. So its the only source wikipedia can use. If I was linking to the forum as a whole, it would be unreliable. Remember this discussion? Maybe its time for a straw poll to actually get a consensus? ChaosMasterChat 13:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Yes I remember, I also remember some ANI's. Also, 3.0 million is not the same as 3.00 million, 3.0 million can be 2.95–3.04 million and rounded, while 3.00 million has a smaller error; 2.995–3.004 million (fun times). Xeworlebi (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Then why don't we just use the 2.99 figure for now? I prefer we use a more precise figure (X.XX) rather than (X.X) for interpretation purposes. Also, the straw poll would be the best idea, more to get a clearer understanding, rather than just another user and I interpret what responses actually mean. How about we start one for the period of two weeks? It can end on September 19, 2010. ChaosMasterChat 15:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC) (←) Because 2.99 million comes from a forum. Trying yet again, now with a poll seems like beating a dead horse. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No, the 2.99 source is TVbythenumbers, which is a reliable source. The poll will eliminate the guessing game going on here, and it will be more straight forward. Feel free to edit it to maintain a neutral POV though. ChaosMasterChat 15:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Oh my bad. For one a press release by The CW is a way better source, secondly because it's the final number, and TV by the Numbers was, I believe, not the final rating. Xeworlebi (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC) The press release was issued based on the overnight ratings (because 99.9% of the time, the overnight ratings are more than the finals; it would make sense for a network to boast about higher ratings rather than lower ones) but the Hellcats is a prime example of how the finals were adjusted up, rather than down (America's Next Top Model's numbers were adjusted down though). And no, TVBTN is not the final rating, but for the sake of not continuing an edit war and disagreements, and for dragging another editor into the issue, using the reliable source's rating will be a fine compromise for me until the straw poll has ended. ChaosMasterChat 16:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC) pifeedback.com (again) I'd like to refer you back to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#Problematic user: ChaosMaster16 (Again) and the discussion on pifeedback.com at WP:RSN. You should remember that it was determined that pifeedback.com is not a reliable source so do not use it, or we're just going to end up at ANI again. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC) It was not determined. What was pretty obvious is that there is a great deal of information that can not be found elsewhere (such as Hellcat's final ratings, rather than its overnight which is inflated). I will go ahead and create a straw poll so our conflicting opinions do not get in the way of determining whether the site is reliable or not. The link is above in the Hellcats section and feel free to edit it so it can maintain a neutral POV. ChaosMasterChat 15:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Actually pifeedback says 3.02, overnight says 2.99 that's the opposite of inflated. Xeworlebi (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Hellcats was a prime example of how overnight vs. finals can change. Instead of falling, like I was expecting, it went up. Some of the other demographics fell, which is irrelevant to the issue, but they are the ones that were "inflated". Another example would be America's Next Top Model. Overnight ratings said it drew 2.88 million viewers, but finals said it drew 2.84 million viewers. Being that TravisYanan is the only source for the finals at the moment, we shouldn't just use the overnights. It is unfortunate though, that he uses a forum to post the numbers from Neilsen, as if there was another site, we could probably use that. Maybe we can have 2.99 (tvbythenumbers)/ 3.02 (pifeedback) with sources for both? ChaosMasterChat 16:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC) The clear consensus at WP:RSN was that it is not a reliable source. This was noted at WP:ANI, which is why you were asked to removed the information. It doesn't matter whether the information is right or wrong, if the source is not reliable, it can't be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Feel free to present your opinion in the poll. ChaosMasterChat 16:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC) You have new messages Waiting for you at the Help Desk. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 17:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC) ANI discussion involving you Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your unwillingness to accept consensus. The thread is Problematic user: ChaosMaster16 (Again) - Yet again. Thank you. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I have deleted the spurious straw poll that you created, being unwilling to accept the consensus that a certain source is not reliable does not mean you can continue to attempt to force the issue; please drop it now, and do not add the link to any more articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC) If you keep warring to insert unreliable sources, you'll get blocked. It's that simple. So please stop. Fences&Windows 17:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I'm forced to add, Chaos, that as someone who has taken time to try and help you, and whose advice you claimed to trust, I'm personally quite disappointed that you have chosen to ignore the advice I gave you after the last ANI incident to not pursue this pifeedback.com issue. At some point, you really will need to learn to drop the stick and accept that consensus is sometimes against you.  Begoon•talk 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC) September 2010 Your addition to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Xeworlebi (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Woah. Sorry to step in here ChaosMaster. First X, don't template the regulars, discussion is much better. And can you please provide a link for this addition? It isn't anything recent that Chaos did. BOVINEBOY2008 13:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC) ChaosMaster added the plot summary written up by Warner Brothers in what appears to me to be a genuine attempt to improve the article (note that he did cite it). Still, I can't see that this is at all something we would do. We don't copy information like that for our article info; we paraphrase it. We quote where it's essential (for example, we could take a few words from that summary if we're going to critically discuss those words), but we're not going to quote something like that verbatim and at such length. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I don't know who added it in the first place but I've already removed it multiple times, each time clearly stating it's a copyright violation. ChaosMaster16 has re-added it here and here. He now went all in and removed the self written description. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Alright, but still don't template the regulars. A simple question probably would have resolved the matter. BOVINEBOY2008 15:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC) WP:TEMPLAR is an essay, it is not and never was Wikipedia policy. I am one of many users who do not see any reason to follow it's advice. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I just found it surprising. I'm not trying to call X out on breaking policy, I would just be more in favor of a courteous notice instead of a generic one. Sorry for any confusion. BOVINEBOY2008 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks Bivineboy for trying to correct a potential mistake. I did know I re-added it, but it wasn't until after I re-added it that I realized some user had copied the summary. It was a misunderstanding on my part and I should have communicated that better. ChaosMasterChat 22:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC) September 2010 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of Hellcats episodes, you may be blocked from editing. -- 78.49.113.162 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Hellcats episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- 78.49.113.162 (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC) It takes two to tango, you two are edit warring and warning one another for it, you both need to just move to the talk page and discuss as needed. Your other option is to keep reverting one another and you'll both be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Hellcats Why do you keep changing to 2.99? You're the one who said about PFIFeedback and rounding up. Rounding 2.99 to 3.00 is how you'd do it even on TVByTheNumbers overnight figures. But the press release from The CW and other sources now is valid enough. What's changed? You're being sneaky about it and not putting edit summaries when you change it! There's an ongoing discussion. Jayy008 (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Round to the nearest tenth. 2.981 would be 2.99 2.999 would be 3.00. Rounding to 3.0 isn't that accurate either. 3.00 would me more appropriate. Where is the ongoing discussion taking place at? ChaosMasterChat 22:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I meant discussion for which source is best about overnight or finals or something, I read above? And why can't the Fruton Critic or The CW be used, the one that says it's 3.0? It's still less than the finals you found. Any idea why TVBTN doesn't post finals anymore? Jayy008 (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I am assuming it is because the only premieres were The CW's four shows, and honestly the premieres won't make or break their renewals (usually). I wish they did though :( ChaosMasterChat 23:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) PS. It was 3.00 but some user keeps changing it to 3.0. Jayy008 (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Oh. Well, im fine with it at 3.00. ChaosMasterChat 00:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC) The only source I have though is The CW one from TVBTN, do you know where I can find the frutoncritic one? Or does it not matter? Jayy008 (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC) (←) Jumping in here. The Futon Critic one is the same press release as on TV by the Numbers and is here You (Jayy008) actually added them here, so perhaps you're looking for something else. Also 2.981 would be 2.98 not 2.99 and 2.99 can be rounded to 3.0 but not 3.00, there is no source saying 3.00, only 3.0 and 2.99, adding trailing zeros is a statistical error and should not be done. Xeworlebi (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I didn't add the FrutonCritic, I reverted an edit that removed it. And thanks for the tip on rounding. Jayy008 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Nomination for deletion of Template:The CW Television Network (The CW) Template:The CW Television Network (The CW) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bisbis (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think you should have edited my comment in this discussion. I am restoring it. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC) John is quite correct. There was no legitimate reason for you to refactor his remarks the way you did. It is generally considered poor form to edit anything in another user's comments, and it is exceptionally poor form to actually alter their meaning as you did. Don't do that again. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Broadcast Finals Can you point me to where shows the Broadcast final ratings please? Jayy008 (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Episode counting You might want to join the discussion here. − Jhenderson 777 13:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Message at my talk page I have replied to a post at my talk page from a new user identifying as your sister. This message is to let you know that you were mentioned in the discussion.  Begoon•talk 17:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC) File:DevelopmentLA.JPG Hi ChaosMaster16. Could you please explain how File:DevelopmentLA.JPG qualifies as your "own work"? - Kollision (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Never mind, that image has been deleted. Please do not upload copyrighted images under a free license. - Kollision (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Hellcats.jpg ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Hellcats.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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). PLEASE NOTE: I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again. If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page. If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page. Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Hellcats Everytime I comment you about moving 2.99 to 3.0 you say it's fine or whatever. Then you go and sneakily move it back without an episode summary. Why?? The finals were 3.03, but there was no source. Besides 2.99 can be rounded to 3 million anyway whichever source you use. Jayy008 (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Either way, it should stay at two decimal places. 2.6 and 2.64 is not the same number, yet the others are sourced. ChaosMasterChat 21:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Hellcats episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of Hellcats episodes, you may be blocked from editing. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of seven days for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Template:Z10 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). ChaosMaster16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: My attempt to discuss controversial changes: . After the user who reported me reverted the page which was being discussed (blatantly ignoring the discussion), I warned the user, who then warned me for vandalism and removed ) his warning. I have obviously been trying to settle the disagreement (as shown above and in the discussion on the article). I do not think a block would help solve the disagreement either. Decline reason: Edit-warring is always against the rules, even when you're sure you are right. When your block expires, try one or more of the suggestions at WP:DISPUTE to reach consensus without edit-warring. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Could it be possible to allow me to edit one of my userpages? ChaosMasterChat 22:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC) A block precludes editing on all pages except this one, sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC) GA review I have reviewed your GAN. I have some comments to be addressed. Thanks. upstateNYer 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Well, that absolutely stinks for that article now, doesn't it? ChaosMasterChat 23:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Pifeedback Chaos, why are you still adding links to pifeedback, an unreliable source, such as at , , , when you have been told by at least 2 admins, and various other editors, after very lengthy discussions, that it is inappropriate?  Begoon•talk 01:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Biggest Loser's article has no other source for the ratings data (and the previous Biggest Loser's articles which use the same site). And after I added Suvivor's, an editor replaced it with a reliable source. At least some editor agrees modestly with me. At this point, all I will do is add it to my userpage (whenever I become unblocked) so this situation won't happen again. Why did Aussie wait until after I was blocked and couldn't respond to report me for something that happend a week or two ago, when I wasn't blocked. At this point, I feel Aussie is just there to report me; after all my talk page has messages only saying "you are now part of (another) ANI discussion". ChaosMasterChat 23:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I only reported you after you had been blocked because I didn't discover your recent additions of pifeedback.com sourced data until after you were blocked. I have far better things to do than report you, which I wouldn't have had to do if you had abided by the overwhelming consensus that pifeedback.com is not a reliable source. Had you done so, and not continually ignored the consensus, there would have been no need for any ANI discussions. You only have yourself to blame I'm afraid. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC) ANI discussion concerning you Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your addition of content to articles from pifeedback.com despite overwhelming consensus that it is not a reliable source. The thread is ChaosMaster16 again - Can we make this the last time?. Thank you. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Following another complaint to ANI regarding your persistent backsliding on promises to abide by consensus regarding pifeedback.com being an unreliable source I have decided to remove your editing privileges until such time as you can convince members of the project that you will not disregard the advice and efforts of other contributors in respect of your edits. I would note to any reviewing editor that they may wish to review the pages listed below for background on this matter. Talk:List of Ghost Whisperer episodes#pifeedback.com as a source, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Pifeedback.com, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625#Problematic user: ChaosMaster16, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#Problematic user: ChaosMaster16 (Again), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637#Problematic user: ChaosMaster16 (Again) - Yet again LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). ChaosMaster16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: At the ANI discussion, it was noted that I had made a userpage that I used to "insert into articles". While infact, I was using this userpager to allow myself to keep the information without posing it on an article. Now, I know with the limited acount editing here I can't explain myself at all, and would have appreciated the full 7 days before the indefinite ban. Also, on a side note User:Pinknp, my actual sister, signed on last night but also could not edit. Is there any reason why she is blocked also? Decline reason: This current block is not about a single recent event, but rather about the net result of a long period of disruptive editing. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to convince administrators that you understand the problem with your editing (and not just this last event) and how you intend to change. Jayron32 05:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. : "Indefinite" is not "infinite". As already advised, this block is until you can somehow convince the community that you are prepared to edit according to the rules, especially WP:CONSENSUS. I would expect that your sister is sufferring from an WP:AUTOBLOCK - because you are prevented from editing, you have forced your sister to be unable to edit. Your non-community actions affect more than just yourself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC) There is no possilble way to edit one of my userpages? ONE? A sandbox type thing? Or do I have to move everything onto the talk page? Its not like I am asking to be absolutely block free, one page of my own so the stupid pifeedback thing can stop. ChaosMasterChat 23:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC) WIkipedia is not a web hosting service. Wikipedia's user pages are pages made available to its users for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project and agreeable to the community. Since pifeedback.com is not able to be used as a source, there is no valid reason for that page to exist, let alone for you to edit it. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC) So let me get this straight. Your answer to my question above is that one of your edits I quote shouldn't "count" because it was replaced by another editor, and the other 2 are ok, because you somehow, in your own mind, are allowed to add unreliable sources if no other source exists? Wrong, and wrong, I'm afraid. You then go on to say that your user page only exists to "stop you" adding this information to articles, yet the edits I quote are after you created this page, so that makes no sense at all. Then, despite all of this, you add this stuff to this page? Here's the last piece of advice I'll give you on this - this page is highly visible since the latest ANI, and admins considering an unblock will look at the content here, and see that you just don't seem to "get it". I suggest you remove the content from this page, and request deletion of the other page, since it is utterly useless as part of your wikipedia editing, and it might be seen as the first step in your willingness to show understanding of the reasons for your block. As I said, though, that's just my last piece of advice, because, until there is any sign that your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach is changing I see no point in wasting my time here. Sorry, and good luck.  Begoon•talk 08:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Not that it really counts for much, but I understand the web hosting thing now. And with the deletion of the page, I would appreciate if you can remove the content not hidden, and keep the content that is hidden, since it is my sandbox. Otherwise, I don't see any other reason for me not to have anything on the talkpage here. Also, how is having my sister on an account anywhere near sock-puppeting? ChaosMasterChat 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Actually, if there is any free web hosting sites where I CAN keep the same or similar table like below, I will be willing to use that. Not that I see what is wrong with using my talk page....? ChaosMasterChat 22:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Since you have been blocked indefinitely you don't have any use for a talk page, and I expect(ed) it to be blanked and replaced with the same content as your user page, especially now you're still adding pifeedback. As for you little sister, I link you WP:LITTLEBROTHER. You could always just use excel if you're that into it. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Im not blaming her for anything. I take 99.9% of the credit for everything that happened on my account. Her account is hers which got blocked after someone incorrectly blocked my whole IP adress. And, the reason for not blanking my talkpage is probably so I can repeal a block. And I have had my share of excel. I was coming to wikipedia to compare data, then edited it, and apperently since there are no reliable sites with the information (Travis Yanan and Tvbythenumber's reposts of Travis' data are not reliable) I put it on the Userpage, which I also asked that you do not completely delete. And honestly, this is one of the uses of a talkpage. ChaosMasterChat 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC) A talk page, aka discussion page, is for discussion it's not a page for content. Content that is not acceptable on articles is also not acceptable on user pages or talk pages. If your "sister" wants her account back she can appeal the block herself, and she could get IP block exception. Pinknp is suspected to be a sockpuppet of yours, (taking the 2 edits on Begoon's talk page stating, I'm not ChaosMaster16; 1 edit on you pifeedback /Eclipse subpage; and 1 edit in line with you additions of The CW template; and nothing else, that's not even that unreasonable). But at the end of the day that account didn't make a single edit 7 days before the block and has made no attempt at to request an unblock. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC) As I indicated above, with links to the relevant policy and guideline,[1] user pages are pages made available for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. The purpose of user pages is actually explained fairly well at Wikipedia:User pages. "User pages are more of a way of organizing and keeping notes about the work that you are doing on articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to interact with and understand those with whom they are working." As I explained in my earlier post, information sourced from pifeedback.com can not be used in articles so the tables you've added are not relevant and shouldn't be here. This is supported by the administrator who recently deleted the content,[2] and who you've ignored by restoring the content.[3] It's this sort of action that resulted in your block and you don't appear to be learning from your mistakes. If you persist in restoring this content, you're going to find yourself unable to edit even this page. Your only action at Wikipedia right now should be trying to convince administrators that you have learned and, in the future, will edit constructively, not edit war, and not ignore consensus. If you're not going to do that, there's little point in editing here at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Apperently my "brother" was incorrect. Not to be entirely rude to you, but even though we are two separate people, we have a great deal of similar interests. If it wasn't for me, actually, he wouldn't even be watching Hellcats. And don't worry, I will make sure that my brother does not edit from my account. I am right now (since he has stepped away to do his work) deleting the passwords and internet search history. He will be helping me with the user page and talk page (I am copying it from his and personalizing it on mine, hopefully), and by helping, I mean he is sitting in my room telling me what to copy and paste, not doing it for me. One small thing, I am not "younger" either. I am older. And honestly, just take some break with him. I am sure he will stop putting this obviously virus threatening site onto wikipedia. I might even have a talk of my own with him ;P Pinknp (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC) MfD nomination of User:ChaosMaster16/Eclipse User:ChaosMaster16/Eclipse, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChaosMaster16/Eclipse and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ChaosMaster16/Eclipse during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Final Ratings Via Travis Yanan Tuesday The Biggest Loser 8PM Episode Rating Share Rating/share (18-49) Viewers (millions) Rank (Timeslot) Rank (Night) 1 4.2 7 2.9/8 7.23 5 5 2 4.5 7 2.7/8 7.19 5 4 Wednesday Survivor 8PM Episode Rating Share Rating/share (18-49) Viewers (millions) Rank (Timeslot) Rank (Night) 1 6.8 12 4.0/13 12.23 1 2 2 7.0 12 4.0/12 12.59 2 3 3 7.1 12 3.5/11 12.26 2 2 America's Next Top Model (Cycle 15) 8PM Episode Rating Share Rating/share (18-49) Women 18-34 Viewers (millions) Rank (Timeslot) Rank (Night) 1 1.8 3 1.3/4 2.1/7 2.84 4 5 2 1.8 3 1.3/4 2.2/7 2.86 6 7 3 1.8 3 1.3/4 2.1/7 2.81 6 7 4 1.9 3 1.3/4 2.1/7 2.91 7 14 Hellcats 9PM Episode Rating Share Rating/share (18-49) Women 18-34 Viewers (millions) Rank (Timeslot) Rank (Night) 1 1.9 3 1.2/4 2.1/6 3.02 4 6 2 1.6 3 1.1/3 1.7/5 2.64 7 7 3 1.4 2 1.0/3 1.7/5 2.31 7 7 4 1.4 2 0.9/3 1.8/5 2.22 8 15 Thursday The Vampire Diaries 8PM Episode Rating Share Rating/share (18-49) Women 18-34 Viewers (millions) Rank (Timeslot) Rank (Night) 1 2.0 3 1.6/5 2.9/9 3.36 6 6 2 1.9 3 1.4/5 2.4/9 3.01 3 3 3 2.2 4 1.6/5 2.7/8 3.56 14 15 Nikita 9PM Episode Rating Share Rating/share (18-49) Women 18-34 Viewers (millions) Rank (Timeslot) Rank (Night) 1 2.2 3 1.4/4 1.8/5 3.57 6 7 2 2.1 3 1.2/3 1.5/4 3.20 2 3 3 1.9 3 1.1/3 1.2/3 3.15 16 16 Friday Smallville 8PM Episode Rating Share Rating/share (18-49) Women 18-34 Viewers (millions) Rank (Timeslot) Rank (Night) 1 1.8 3 1.3/5 1.0/4 2.98 3 5 2 Supernatural 9PM Episode Rating Share Rating/share (18-49) Women 18-34 Viewers (millions) Rank (Timeslot) Rank (Night) 1 1.7 3 1.3/4 1.3/5 2.90 4 6 2 References Sockpuppetry case Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChaosMaster16 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Xeworlebi (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)