User talk:BackyardigansKaibigan

Welcome

Hello, BackyardigansKaibigan, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Talkback

Hello, BackyardigansKaibigan. You have new messages at Cyphoidbomb's talk page.
Message added 01:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Hello, I'm Cyphoidbomb. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Backyardigans, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Diff: [1] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Backyardigans, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Diff: [2] Though you might consider yourself an expert on the subject, any narratives where you attempt to describe behind-the-scenes facts needs to be sourced, lest they be considered original research. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passive-aggressive personal attack

Hi there, regarding your passive-aggressive personal attack here, there is nothing unreasonable about asking you for sources. Content must be verifiable and cannot contain original research. Though you may consider yourself an expert, we can't rely on your memory as a reference, because we cannot check your brain out in a library to verify the information. These are community policies and guidelines, not stuff I've made up just to give you a hard time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Cyphoidbomb,

It's not about the sourcing as much anymore, but I have reasons why I added. Let's see...

15:33, 25 May 2015‎ Cyphoidbomb (-674)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 663614328 by BackyardigansKaibigan (talk): Confusing, unsourced, unexplained intermediate edits. (TW)) (undo) That was an unnecessary accusation.

16:21, 3 July 2015‎ Distribution content is unsourced, so it's no more useful than the existing unsourced content. That doesn't mean you can keep the unsourced reference (the Paramount/CBS garbage, and I deleted that anyways.)

Did I mention that if a digital distributor adds a series to selection titled Max & Ruby: The Complete Series, then it must mean production ended, right? And how the production site says only five seasons will be produced two years ago, remained static, and how it should be placed somewhere on the site that it's done? Oh, a source? Look here. www.nelvana.com/show/97/max-and-ruby

That's not the only thing I've noticed. It seems that you sometimes remove accepted parts of a big contribution when reverting the whole thing.

I'm sorry if I gave you a hard time, but I was quite offended by these, which caused me to hold a grudge against you, and I understand, as an administrator on a Wiki myself, that that wasn't a mature thing to do, as well as I shouldn't take that personally. I respect you as an administrator, and if you want me to delete that statement on my user page, then tell me, but I still stand by my word. I mean well, please understand that. I only ask you, in the future, please at least read all of the contributions instead of demolishing it all. That's really lazy.

As a final note, why was I patrolled?

BackyardigansKaibigan (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are noted, but you are describing as lazy something that was easily preventable had you provided sources to begin with. It's not reasonable to expect other editors to sift through your contributions and figure out what's useful and what isn't. I stand by my statement "Distribution content is unsourced, so it's no more useful than the existing unsourced content." Problematic unsourced content doesn't suddenly become "improved" simply because it's changed. It still needs to be verifiable for it to be of any value. I have hundreds of edits to look through each day, I don't have time to check everybody's work. I don't understand your points about distribution and Max & Ruby. These are probably things that should have been explained at the time they were submitted. I don't know what you are referring to when you ask "why was I patrolled?" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: High Tea

I understand that there were two titles for said episode, but since both have been used in the U.S. and it is unclear which version iTunes would use if they were to add it, I think the question should be "Which title is used most commonly?" so that readers could identify the episode easily. However, seeing as your username has "Backyardigan" in it, I take it that you're a fan (I am, too, but I'm a fan of all Nelvana shows) and I respect your decision to research the High Tea topic; is it possible that "The Tea Party/High Tea," or something similar, would work? Squiddaddy (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hello, I'm Derbundeskanzler. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to The Backyardigans because you added untrue information; while some promotion did indeed occur in America, you seem to believe that no work on the show was done in Canada. Please thoroughly research your topics before editing Wikipedia; the TV show is not "a American" [sic] TV series. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

I stand by my statement that the show is not American, and you should know that your misleading edits do qualify as vandalism. Just because your username includes "Backyardigans" it does not make you an expert on the subject. As I said, research before you add misleading information (unless, of course, your intention was to vandalize the page). Derbundeskanzler (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Derbundeskanzler: Recent changes patroller with no knowledge of the subject. While I agree on the surface that it is an American production and a revert was probably for the best, please understand the difference between vandalism and good faith changes. I can't say that BackyardigansKaibigan for even a moment purposefully wanted to damage the page - rather was making a mistake. Don't bite him! We've all got to learn to get around on with wiki at some point. I'd suggest reading WP:AGF. Thank you for your understanding. ~ NottNott let's talk! contrib 21:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Derbundeskanzler: I'm not sure why you keep insisting that the series is not American. Unless you can confirm that it's not, which is nearly impossible, I'd be pretty surprised. If I'm a vandal, I would provide not factual information, but I'm not. I'm an anti-vandal. Also, I've been chastised on my "Backyardigans in my username" scenario on multiple occasions. No, I don't (only) consider myself as an expert on the series, I only correct and revise mistakes, such as your "Canadian-America" insist, and removing my "Angry Vandal" comment is not only offensive, but quite immature. Get to know someone before you get passive-aggressive.

Please provide a source to your edits, if anything. Only IMDb lists Nickelodeon as a production company. For now, the page says Canadian-American, but it may be simply "Canadian" in the future. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want your sources? Then "Hold on tight!"

I'd show you more, but it'd flood my wall. If anything, Nelvana is the (tiny) licensor, more so Viacom! Geez, unless you can find a major "Treehouse TV" feat., then lemme know. BackyardigansKaibigan (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion on your "Message Wall." Please check there. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I have a link to this discussion? BackyardigansKaibigan (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right here - http://backyardigans.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:13729 (you should be familiar with the atmosphere; I must admit I was not expecting 7,000 edits from you there). Derbundeskanzler (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Backyardigans#Nationality of show

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Backyardigans#Nationality of show. Thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

I must apologize for my assumption of you as a vandal; your edits were not malicious. However, I once again request a source for your Burbank claims; if you can find a statement, the debate is over. For the meantime, Nelvana is to be listed as the primary production company and Canada the primary production country, as these statements are sourced in a variety of publications and websites. Derbundeskanzler (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your recent editing history at The Backyardigans 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CT

Hi, I don't mean to keep stepping on your edits. That's got to be frustrating and I know you mean well. We do, though, adhere to MOS:CT when typing composition titles because that's the way the community wants titles to be formatted, even if other sources use a different style guideline. For some perspective, we are also able to do minor reformatting of direct quotations to repair things like missing commas, misspellings and miscapitalization, which is not something you'd think we should do, but per MOS:QUOTE, ...trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important. Though quotations are not what we're talking about, my point is that we don't have to faithfully adhere to stylization that isn't consistent with our MOS. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of The Backyardigans episodes#Production order instead of airing order

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_The_Backyardigans_episodes#Production_order_instead_of_airing_order. Thanks. 108.20.47.212 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are two different issues addressed in the discussion, one for the episode ordering and one for episode titles.

Treehouse

You wrongly removed "Treehouse TV shows" from The Backyardigans. In your edit description, you stated "Though, a confirmed complete Nickelodeon property, hence their creative site, thus not a Treehouse-classified original." so I presume you believe the category is for Treehouse originals, but this is not the case. As you can see in the category, all shows aired on Treehouse go there. The fact that the series is of some Canadian origin is even more reason to keep the category. Please discuss this with me before undoing the edit incorrectly. So sorry to sound this way. 108.20.47.212 (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]