User talk:Encmetalhead

Please find a reliable, Wiki-accepted source for the HOW ratings

I've reverted your edit again, because Wikipedia articles require verified, reliable sources, especially when they deal with hard numbers, like Nielsen ratings. We need a more substantial source than an anonymous commenter on a blog. Please see previous sources (thefutoncritic.com for example) used in the article. You may have to wait until that site posts the 8/31 ratings for the information you're seeking.

For more on this, please go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptable_sources#Reliable_sources --ActuallyNoYouAreWrong (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your post on my Talk page. --ActuallyNoYouAreWrong (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AMC "In Development" Projects

Here is the problem with adjusting the in development programs based on FutonCritic's development watch. Their system is adjusted for network television, where it works fine. Scripts and pilots get ordered, shows picked up are presented at upfronts during a specific time of year, and the ones not picked up are not continued for development.

In cable development, this is not how development works. Their cycle does not follow a traditional timeframe; projects can be developed for long periods of time and during any point of the year.

FutonCritic simply moves "in current development" for shows that were announced after a specific date. This date works for the purposes of network development, because all shows picked up have been announced by then. Since cable does not follow this cycle, the specific date they use for the new development cycle is arbitrary relative to cable program development. A perfect example of this is Ballistic City vs Untitled Dystopian Saga. Ballistic City was first announced in mid-April, which puts it under FutonCritic's 2013-2014 cycle. The Untitled Dystopian Saga was announced on May 1st - less than 2 weeks later - which puts it under FutonCritic 2014-2015 development cycle (and hence active development). Notice that the cutoff in time here was arbitrary; both shows are freshly announced and still in development despite FutonCritic's categorization system, which simply uses date cutoffs to determine 'active' development. FutonCritic will update a show if there are news releases about it, but not all shows in active development have a news announcement about their progress.

The logical thing to do for cable development is to leave shows under in development until one of two things happens: there is news the project is dead, or a reasonable period of time (for cable this could be 2-3+ years) has passed.

--CarbonSparks (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Terror was announced in February and Line of Sight/Raiders was announced in March. If we waited 2-3 years on projects that will never be picked up the page would be too cluttered. As I said I follow TV news like a hawk, if you leave the programming sections to me and we team up for the other sections we can make all the pages for AMC Networks fully updated/fleshed out.Encmetalhead (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair to me. I suppose since you keep an active eye on the network's projects, it shouldn't matter one way or another since any news will push the shows back into development. Sorry about the misunderstanding. CarbonSparks (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but...

... don't revert without giving a reason. This is in regards to the Better Call Saul article: While User:Chunk5Darth was incorrect (according to articles like this one, the name and Odenkirk's presence are pretty much set), it's unhelpful to simply undo his changes without explaining why. You should really only be undoing without an additional summary if someone is vandalizing or spamming, or in a handful of other cases (malfunctioning bots, self-reverts, or if you've already explained yourself but the other user is ignoring your explanation; beware the three-revert rule, though). — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reasoned my edits on the talk page. Please take it there. Chunk5Darth (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at @midnight. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. STATic message me! 21:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of @midnight episodes, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. STATic message me! 21:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On every other episode table, once an episode airs the references are removed, yet you're telling me that when the @midnight episodes air I must ADD references? That seems backwards. Encmetalhead (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those Who Kill

I was the script supervisor on "Those Who Kill." I keep adding episode information and you keep deleting it. Why? If I'm not a reliable "source" then nobody is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrycaldwell (talk • contribs) 01:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first it was unsourced. Now it's someone who is affiliated with the show and seemingly has a financial state in the success of the show. Former would be easily fixed by adding references, the latter will cause all your edits from here on out to be reverted. Encmetalhead (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Since the series has been renewed, I created the List of The Red Road episodes page. Just letting you know. — Wylie pedia 10:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Encmetalhead (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 9 May

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 The Writers' Room 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) 00:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me on Orphan Black re: trans clone

Haven't watched today's episode yet (waiting on the recording to finish) and couldn't find any info about it confirming the new character so I just assumed vandal (because I see that type of edit as actual vandalism all the time). I appreciate you noting the introduction in your second edit summary so that I realized what was going on. Although now that I think about it, I've seen you putting nice polishes on that article for a while now and I totally should have realized when it was you that reverted me. lol. Anyways, thanks again and happy editing. Millahnna (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! Just next time, for you well being, stay off Wikipedia until you watch the episode xD Encmetalhead (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right? One of the few shows I watch that I don't read spoilers for so... oops? With the in show conversations where people were surprised about Cosima being gay, though, I kind of figured they'd pull in a trans clone eventually. It's not like I was spoiled for Leekie's (hilariously wrong) death, so it could be worse. Millahnna (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Tour

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2012. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, learn how to make a section. Second the page you linked to is where others have a discussion and then mods choose the corse of action. Not for you to write something and then take action upon yourself. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a real charmer, metalhead. I think I know how AfD works, thank you very much. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you probably want to have a look at Wikipedia:Canvassing, and explain how the group of people you picked for your notification is a non-partisan audience. How did you pick them? One more thing: we speak of "admins" here, not "mods", and I happen to be one of them. Canvassing is a blockable offense. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" Most of the users who I linked to the discussion, with a neutral message I may add, have made substantial edits and have edited the articles within the past 6 months. Also if you were an admin you would've gone through the proper protocols or at least notified users that the article might be deleted/blanked via the talk page. The way you went about it was unprofessional regardless of admin power or not. Encmetalhead (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you don't know what the proper protocols are. That's alright, you're not a very experienced user, and I accept your apology. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know an a admin shouldn't be talking down to a user regardless of experience level, which I am experienced thank you very much, and I would hate to see what your fellow admin would think if they saw how you were treating other users and acting in relation to protocol and treatment of articles. Encmetalhead (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Warped Tour 2012. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're such an experienced user you should know that you cannot insert this kind of crap in an encyclopedic article. If there's "shockwaves that are still being felt", surely some reliable newspaper has written about it. So, if you can be bothered to source it, source it. Otherwise, go play somewhere else. A kid has died, apparently--it's not up to you to abuse such a tragedy. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on a laptop but I'm sure MTV counts. http://www.mtv.com/news/1689699/vans-warped-fan-dies-toronto/

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Warped Tour 2008 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to With Honors

Warped Tour 2012 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Impending Doom

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of vandalism

Go ahead, explain how I have vandalised Salem (TV series) here. 77.120.242.172 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By putting your opinion into a factual article. Encmetalhead (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. You are the vandal. 17:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.120.242.172 (talk)

Metalhead, you should be careful and not get dragged into edit wars: edit warring is wrong even if you're right. I blocked the IP, but please take more care next time. Report them at WP:ANEW, notify an admin, and just let it go for others to deal with. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AMC shows template

Hi, Encmetalhead! I saw that you reverted my edits on the AMC template on the basis that the shows were already in alphabetical order. This means that, in your opinion, the definite article ("the") in a show's title should be completely ignored as if it was never there in the first place. Is there some sort of consensus on that? If there is, it's really fine by me. If there isn't, then, in my opinion, no one should arbitrarily dismiss any words from the proper title of a show. The other TV network templates do not necessarily follow what you suggest. What do you think? CostaDax (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always omit "the" when doing alpha order/thinking of it as "Pitch, The", but it is one of those there where it is likely a personal preference that suits you best. Sadly not even iTunes is consistent in regards to this. Encmetalhead (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I believe that there should be consistency throughout the TV network templates on that matter. If we disregard the definite article, what else should we also disregard, and where does this stop? Should we also disregard the indefinite article ("a"/"an"), should we disregard non-English articles ("el", "ella", "il", "la", etc.), should we disregard prepositions (at, of, in, on, to, etc.), should we also disregard words such as "one", "this", "that", etc.? This has no end, and personal preferences should be put aside. The shows have official proper titles, and if they include the definite article at the beginning, it cannot and should not be dismissed. I suggest that the AMC template should follow that example. CostaDax (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical_order#The_and_other_common_words Encmetalhead (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Page lurking) As a past journalist/English major, I am in complete agreement, and have reverted some or all other revisions of the like. — Wylie pedia 06:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny enough, I'm a former journalist as well. Encmetalhead (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to AMC (TV channel) 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:

* ''[[Turn: Washington's Spies)|TURИ: Washington's Spies]]'' (2014–present)
1-3, series will move to [[Netflix]] for its fourth season){{citation needed|date=April 2014}})

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance template

Hi, Encmetalhead. I've removed unlinked text from the Sundance Shows template per WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAV, where it states that unlinked text should be avoided. See Template talk:Sundance Shows#Removing unlinked text. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@midnight

I don't wanna fight about this I honestly don't that's why I caved in last time. Its very common to have future listings on other late night shows it is. We shouldn't omit something because it is hard to do. I can suggest we limit it to only the currently airing week or the nearest week to air, to keep it shorter and easier to maintain, and more consistently accurate. Like I said I'm not interested to fighting that hard, but the only opposing voice is you, which doesn't constitute a consensuses to omit it. Talk to Aqlpswkodejifrhugty and Jzummak, they're regular @midnight editors, they'd have opinions or ideas about this. Grapesoda22 (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a regular editor, hell I started the statistics table and went through all the aired shows at the time to get it correct, just been slacking overall recently with real life getting in the way. I offered a compromise on the talk page where we keep the old system and implement the new system but only have the old system in the onlyinclude tags. I just don't know why there is such a need to "fix" something that aint broke. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@midnight episodes

I've re-opened the original discussion on the talk page for further discussion. link. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January, 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some 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.

Please refrain from reverting to your favored version of the article on BBC America. The stable version is the version of the article before you made your edits. No further reverts should be made while discussion is ongoing. --Drmargi (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@midnight title

There's a discussion on the talk page about weather or not we should use the long form version with Hardwicks name or keep it the way it was. I thought you'd be a good person to weigh in. Grapesoda22 (talk)

Orphaned non-free image File:WE tv 2014 logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WE tv 2014 logo.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086 ^Talk 02:52, 10 May 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) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Power Seven Conferences

I don't think this is speedy worthy. Try AfD. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Mr. Vernon. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Talk:Power Seven Conferences 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. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just figured since it was needed anymore it could just be removed. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Encmetalhead. 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]