User talk:deliriousandlost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is delirious & lost 's talk page,
where you can send her messages and comments. Click here to ask her something.

I will respond wherever the conversation started.
Please no talk backs


It has been awhile since I last spoke with you and I wanted to say hello. Also that I hope all is well for you. It's a beautiful day. My76Strat (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi Deliriousandlost!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.


Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.


I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 00:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In Over My Head[edit]

I just read your message and I have been very afraid to log into Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never be used as a stage to bully or attack another person without finding out the facts first. Wikipedia is used by children and adults to learn specifics on a topic. I would never want another person to slander another’s person's sexual preferences and I would run to their aid. What goes on behind closed doors isn't anyone’s business. Thank you for your apologies, it means allot. I felt like I was fighting an uphill battle, by myself. Thankfully Jayan466 took the time to research the information I argued. Then again, the internet seems to like gossip more than the truth. Crackofdawn (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Everywhere has nice people and not-nice people. You simply can't avoid it. You have to deal with it. Simply logging in to Wikipedia shouldn't scare you. That it did speaks to the unpleasant experiences you had. I can't do anything about that. I can tell you that while some things seem inherently conflict-inciting not everything is so high-strung, stressful, and aggressive. Also, most people do mean well but it doesn't always come across like that in words on a screen. You were dealing with a rather intense disagreement and a subject that is prone to sensationalised media coverage. It certainly is not among the easier things to write about. I left that note for you the better part of 21 months ago hoping you would find it some day. Today is that day. You logged in. That is taking a step. One thing i sometimes do when i just want to both learn and improve something is click the "random page" link and browse until i find something that needs some work or/and is of interest to me. Sometimes it is just fixing a spelling mistake. Sometimes there is a 'clean up' tag of some kind and i tend to that. There is a nice sense of accomplishment when done and almost never does it end up in a big fight. I am a bit tired and what i wrote might not be the best of response so i think i shall end now. Welcome back. Wonderful to read from you. ~hugs~

Murdoch Mysteries - Season 5 episodes[edit]

Can you take a look around episode 4-6. The bold colour doesn't go all the way to the right and I can't seem to find the mistake. I noticed it when I copied and pasted the episode list for season 6. Maybe you can find the misktake. I'll check back on your page in a few days for your reply. Thanks! (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I managed to fix it. (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Those little code typos can be a pain to find. Glad you found it.

A pleasure[edit] see you around, as always. Love and wishes for the Christmas, new year and the holidays. Wifione Message 17:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank You.[edit]

Thanks for reviewing my request. I was expecting it to be declined due to my accidental block. If you would like, I happy to explain what happened and how the block was caused. Would you like to hear my story?—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am honestly hesitant because i have this feeling that if doing it got you blocked and those edits oversighted and had you sent to the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee then telling the story of what you did to get blocked might end up with another block.
I am telling a story and not performing the edits that oversighted. I can assure that I won't be blocked for this. It was not as serious of an issue as it appears. Ban Appeals released my block as they saw that I had no intentions of causing such a disruption and at the time, was unaware what WP:Oversight was. I would also tell you this story via e-Mail since I do not wish to disclose to the public what happened to me just yet. My blocking admin was User:WilliamH which I believe we are on good terms and my unblocking arb-com member was User:Mailer Diablo who understood my intentions.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Listener[edit]

I saw this edit and it got me looking through the UK tv schedules but no sign of it although March is best guess. Same as 2011. Series 1 is being repeated at 3am mon-fri which could be a lead into series 3 in march.REVUpminster (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Your in Canada and I am in England so you should know and I will not edit until I see it on the official site or I actually watch series three here in England which I don't expect until March. Imdb is often wrong and I edit there occasionally but they take weeks to effect a corrrection.REVUpminster (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It does surprise me how easy it must has been to get approval for such a large con and yet to get it corrected/removed would mean an insane amount of demands for proof something doesn't exist. And absent the proof of non-existence the claim it exists will remain. 'Tis the downside of IMDb. I have not yet seen any dates for the show on FX but i also have not looked. March would be in keeping with previous years in the UK but in Canada there is no pattern.

Thank you :)[edit]

Thanks a lot :) Relieved. No problem, I am kinda busy. Thanks for the hug :) -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 16:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I remember about the WMF Toolserver block to be ignored. I will be available on IRC when handling ACC requests. Thanks a ton :) -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help !![edit]

Acc-barnstar.png The ACC Helper Barnstar
For your continuous help and assistance. And you managed very well all my mess-ups :) Thanks for bearing my stupidity and ignorance. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 17:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Firm[edit]

Sorry. "It is non-news to be not-moved to a different day." would have been sufficient, but I understand now why the Canadian schedule will not be moved. Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you get us some RS about the Showcase rebroadcasts in Canada?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Doubtful. Its not like it is a featured programme on the channel like Lost Girl. It is a partial-in-house production so they show it on the broadcast network and spread it across most every cable channel in which it wouldn't be totally out of place (no The Firm on Food Network but i wouldn't be surprised if it was on History Television one day). This coming Sunday it is Chapter Five on MysteryTV. The only time it has ever been of much actual news is when XIII premiered in SD on Mystery a massive 36 hours BEFORE the press releases said it was to premiere on Showcase. That had a few people saying WTF???? Haven has delayed showing on Mystery. One difference is king because it got an encore showing in a bit of a promoted-sense as it went from cable to broadcast network so there is some news coverage of that.
Bell does a similar thing. You can watch Grimm on CTV and then a few days later it is on SPACE. BONES, House, and The Good Wife all get shown later in the week on MysteryTV. It isn't really anything new here. If you want a reference you could get into the Showcase schedule and use that but make sure to get it archived as the data goes away after a little while.

Questions about an archived discussion[edit]

Having rolled out templates on episodes (e.g. "The Good Son" (Frasier) and "Pilot" (The Cosby Show)), I am reconsidering an archived discussion about templates on season episodes: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_14#Adding_seasons_to_award_winners. I understand that season articles are often nothing more than episode lists. However, some of these articles are substantive quality season articles. See Wikipedia:Good_articles/Arts#Theatre.2C_film_and_drama and Wikipedia:FA#Media. If wikipedians are spending their time wisely, some of these articles are the critically acclaimed ones that may benefit from a revamp. I will talk to some others and then consider revising the templates. Consider The West Wing (season 1). It seems to me that it would be helpful if that article included {{EmmyAward DramaSeries 1976–2000}}, {{ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVDrama 2000–2009}}, {{GoldenGlobeTVDrama 1990–2009}}. Although the series won the award in a sense, all seven seasons did not win the 2000 awards. The 2000 awards were won mostly by season 1 and partly by season 2 because the awards were based on episodes between certain dates. Explain to me again why season 1 should not have these templates.

If I understand it correctly, suppose a show that has 24 episodes per year wins the SAG or Golden Globe, which are based on calendar years instead of television seasons. Lets say the show lasts 7 years and thus has about 170 episodes. If it wins an award for one year suppose 16 episodes were from season 2 and 8 were from season 3. Thus, the award represents 2/3rds of season 2 and 1/3rd of season 3. It also represents 1/7th of the entire series. Why is putting it on the seasons more of a problem than putting it on the series.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a question to me or a rhetorical comment? My first guess would be template overkill.
Template overkill. Did you look at the page I asked you to consider. It has no templates like many season articles. I will repeat what I said above. Consider The West Wing (season 1). It seems to me that it would be helpful if that article included {{EmmyAward DramaSeries 1976–2000}}, {{ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVDrama 2000–2009}}, {{GoldenGlobeTVDrama 1990–2009}}. Although the series won the award in a sense, all seven seasons did not win the 2000 awards. The 2000 awards were won mostly by season 1 and partly by season 2 because the awards were based on episodes between certain dates. Explain to me again why season 1 should not have these templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't respond favourably to a lot of links. That is generally evidenced by my lack of use of links to everything that possibly could be linked. Repeating yourself gets you a less favourable response due to there being even more links. Perhaps since you seem to understand that i didn't understand you you might think of something other than repeating yourself as a way of maybe helping me understand your concern. But you didn't. Did i look at the page you asked me to consider? No. Have i read the relevant article and templates in the past? Yes; therefore merging them in my mind was fairly easy to do. I did however ask you if this was a rhetorical statement or a genuine question. You got hostile. Do i care? Not really that much. I don't see how adding in a template for Emmy winners for a quarter-century is relevant to a season of The West Wing if the same template is on the main article for the show, especially since some awards are by year and others are by broadcast season. Ever since someone decided to push through categorisation of North American tv shows by calendar year rather than broadcast season and argued that broadcast seasons don't really exist but continue to write articles chronicling programming changes in US broadcast seasons i really honestly don't give a shit. WP is the sum of human knowledge so long as enough people think it worthwhile with known errors treated as correct if the majority favour the error. Bickering over inclusion of templates holds very little interest for me as i can easily not scroll that far down on a page if so inclined or navigate my way to a main article to make use of the template if so desired and it isn't on a secondary article i am reading. Removal of even more colour in favour of yet another shade of grey is something one can not so easily escape and so it has interest for me.
If someone can't do the math or read the article and know which seasons were shown in what years then adding in links to the relevant seasons will not help them. If you want it simply for more direct access well i think i should direct you to the first paragraph for my thoughts on excess linking. The templates are supposed to aid navigation and give very basic information and i have the understanding that you seek to make them more complex. While it has its purpose in the particular circumstance we don't need more templates like the SAG ensemble cast award winners. If you put in "(s4/s5)" someone will want to expand that to "(season 4/season 5)" because it is assuming too much to use the one letter abbreviation which others will assume is unfamiliar in this context for the average reader of the template.
How is the 1978 winner of the Emmy Award for outstanding drama relevant to season 3 of The West Wing? If you don't have an obvious answer then inclusion of the template on the article for season 3 would be template overkill.
If the article is not found in the template it probably has no business hosting a copy of the template. If you need to add the article to the template to justify adding the template to the article then that is template overkill.
That's all folks.
  1. I find your response uncivil. When your answer to a 10-line question indicated confusion, I winnowed my question down to 4 lines by repeating the crux of the issue. Do you consider that an act of hostility? I think your use of hostility is an attempt to instigate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Your response that you did not understand my concern, did not consider the exemplary pages and don't care that much about the issue is befuddling and also a bit uncivil.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. I am willing to replace my proposed "(s4/s5)" with "(season 4/season 5)".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. I agree that "The Rockford Files (season 4)" is fairly unrelated to "The West Wing (season 1)", but so is "The Rockford Files" to "The West Wing".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. My point is this. I have spent about a year cleaning up TV and Theatre templates. A prior discussion is keeping me from cleaning up one more thing. Thus, I am trying to talk to the three people who opposed my decision. The first person has removed his objection. Now, I am moving on to the second person, who is being uncivil.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
How dare you tell me i am instigating anything. You started this. I said my piece and left it alone. You came after me a year later regarding it. That good sir is instigation.
I honestly didn't understand what you were wanting so i asked if it was a rhetorical statement. You got pissed off at me and essentially shouted back at me the very thing that was not understood the first time. I find that your pushing this on me is uncivil and my response is in kind. Because i don't care is why it is uncivil. To be blunt, piss off, is what i would have written if i wanted to be overtly uncivil. You can not like my response all you want. I despise you asking me the question in the first place. 360 days ago you had my answer. You don't like it. Today you demand i reconsider. I am offended by your demanding. I wish i had been left out of it. You persist. I am wishing you would desist. So yes i am quite upset but hello what have you done? Left me alone, nay. You sought a fight with me and when you got it you complained about getting it.
I think your plan is foolish, improper, cumbersome, unnecessary, excessive, misleading, and deceptive. When i pointed out that someone would want to expand the "s4/s5" to "season 4 / season 5" it was not a suggestion for you to comply with but an example of how someone else will make it worse than you plan to. If it were just you and i we would forever be reverting each other. I only came across that previous discussion by random chance. I made one comment directly regarding the proposal and one related to something i learnt from looking into the pro/con of your proposal. I do believe you asked me a question there which i had never read before a couple of hours ago. That might be an indication as to my level of interest in this matter.
Since you have insisted i partake you have succeeded in securing reäffirmation of my previous objection.
What you propose doing i would see as needing the cleaning up rather than being the cleaning up. I don't know how i can make that more clear; i object to the minute details and the totality of your proposal. Beyond acknowledgement of the existence of the templates we have nothing in agreement.
"The Good Son" is proposed to be merged so i might suggest you not cite that as an example of the up-side of your actions. My very point is demonstrated in the templates on that article. The award goes to that episode of the show and therefore the relevant templates are on the article for that episode. The awards won by the show as a collective are found in the templates on the article for the whole of the show. Since the outstanding/best drama/comedy awards are for the show the templates for those awards belong on the articles for the respective shows and not on multiple season articles. Template overkill could be too many templates on a single article or putting a single template on too many articles.
Tony, if you want some template work we can agree on how about creating templates for the major Canadian channels like are found for the major US channels. I was thinking that it be for original programming rather than current programming. A lot of the shows that would go in CA channel original programming is presented here on WP as US shows. A few hours ago i cleaned up The Best Years which was written by someone who seemed to be hating on Canada worse than i am with your awards templates revival idea. CBC, CTV, Global, Citytv, CTV two, Showcase, SPACE, History Television, Bravo!, HBO Canada, Movie Central + The Movie Network, and maybe a few others. Super Channel is all imports so unless it were simply for current programming that could be skipped. Maybe a design which incorporates current programming from everywhere and lists current and past original series. And by original i don't mean original in the way Syfy claims Merlin is a Syfy original series. But you would have to be careful because a lot of original Canadian series are presented on WP and most everywhere as though they are American. I was never much a fan for these templates when they popped up but for seeing them all and only for US channels has me not liking the skew from them. I have SPACE and Showcase templates done.

Seismic Activity in Greater Sudbury Page[edit]

I deleted the section on seismic activity on the Greater Sudbury page because earthquakes of 3.0 are completely trivial and occur everywhere, however the one incident you mention may warrant a move to the history section. Mine shaft cave ins are not a geographic feature of Sudbury (that's the section it is presently in now). The reason I didn't move the sentence on Worthington to history already, is that it is not sourced. If you cannot find a source for this, it should, regretfully, be deleted to meet GA standards. Mattximus (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not every city is built on top of mines and has a history of cave-in. I no longer live near the library in downtown Sudbury with the massive collection on local history. Chances of finding an online acceptable reference for the cave-in of a town nearly 85 years ago is almost as good as me making the trip back home just to find it in a book and maybe get a picture or two scanned. The current Worthington neighbourhood in the rural part of the city is not the location of the town though it is close. If you are wanting a reference i would suggest you ask Bearcat as last i could ascertain he lives in Sudbury and should be able to find what i am thinking of fairly easily. I used to live just around the corner from Worthington Street ;)

ACC Tool Issues[edit]

I emailed you through the Wikipedia form to discuss what you brought to my attention. Please let me know if there would be a better way of contacting you about this matter. Thanks -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The timing wasn't the greatest. I have taken a very quick look at it and 2 things: you should know by now what they checks are and telling me what you should have done when i already gave you the 'answers' is not exactly what i was hoping for. I'll look at it in detail on Monday. One of those days where you don't want me to get into it; wait for me to be smiling before addressing this.
Take your time. I did not intend to regurgitate the information you gave me, I more wanted to show you how I needed to have changed my thought process and really better acquaint myself with some things. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 11:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I have read it. The short answer is "that don't impress me much". Mark reviewed your email and he suggested the probation seemed reasonable. Check your email for the terms.
Thank you for reading. I've responded. I hope that I can turn around and make good on this situation. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

ACC Tool Mentorship[edit]

Hey D&L,

I've been working on what we previously discussed and User:Joshua Issac has said that he would mentor me (slowly as he has exams) see: User talk:Joshua Issac#ACC Mentoring. I have a much better grasp of WP:ACC/G and I am prepared to take each request slowly with the help of my mentor. I was hoping that I could have tool access back under the requirements that we had agreed upon. Thanks -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Joshua and i had a quick chat and he understands the scope and is agreeable to being your probation officer. I have restored your ACC account. Don't forget that IRC is so that you have many more people more readily available for somewhat real-time feedback and help.


Hi! I don't know what happened there at IRC, I could see your messages there but wasn't able to reply. Actually I am new to IRC. While reconnecting to IRC power cut disconnected me. Anyways thanks for the help. --SMS Talk 14:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


Given your involvement in List of The Firm episodes, you should be aware that there is a huge discussion going on about original airdates at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Airdates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

At least it isn't as bad as a discussion about whether Merlicn and Lost Girl are Syfy original series even though they are imports which are shown first elsewhere. American use of "original" doesn't always agree with usage in the rest of the world. "Original Air Date"... you watched Outlaw? Remember how it was on in Canada a day before USA. Or Harry's Law being consistently on Fridays in Canada despite NBC moving it around such that eventually it was on first in Canada. Fights or huge discussions over "original" are nothing new to me. What i don't understand is if they want to use the dates from a specific country instead of tracking the first wherever broadcast then why not just change the column heading to "Spain Air Dates" or "Japan Air Dates". It seems so simple. :)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire[edit]

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL; is it 1 April already? Seriously, why not just change this to and be done with this so Americans can have it their way.

Account creation[edit]

Remember me?—cyberpower ChatOnline 22:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been over a half a year now since I applied for the tool. I wish to be re-evaluated.—cyberpower ChatOnline 22:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Read the email from a week ago and wasn't too impressed. Confessing to attempting to set up a 2nd account and claiming it was an accident/misunderstanding and acting like you weren't declined last year until Simon informed you just doesn't speak favourably toward your trustworthiness. I kept thinking you would reply and address things but you didn't. Personally i find closing RfA in which you have voted to be a bit distasteful. I do recall that you then had a recent block which you had to address with the ban appeals committee and i don't think i ever really understood what it was about. Then it was indeed recent and so automatically disqualified you but now it isn't that recent. Without really understanding what that was all about it is hard to make an informed decision. Perhaps you could do that via email in a more formal request for a review of your ACC application. It would allow other admins the chance to give 2nd/3rd/4th opinion if they wish. Hopefully you still have the original email and can just reply to it but if not then use
I don't understand. What do you mean second account? What email are you talking about.? Who's Simon? I kept myself block free and wanted to get involved in account creation. I reapplied for the same account and same username. The first application went through. Nothing happened. I applied again a week or two later but it said the username was in use. When I went to the login page, to see if I can access the interface, it said user wasn't identified. I sent an e-Mail to the mailing list specified and got no response. When I tried to login again I got a bunch of decline information with your username listed as the reviewer. I'd be happy to email you about my block and what I did wrong but I want to know the answers to my questions above as well.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Due to the comments left in your block log specifically this one, I can not and will not provide you with access to private information. You are under no obligation to even reveal ( and I suggest you don't) any information about this action. I understand that this block is not too recent but, you must understand ACC's position in this type of situation "the block is Oversight" in nature which is almost certainly deals with private information which ACC deals with everyday. My suggestion to you is find another way/area to contribute to the project. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Simon is the guy in charge of ACC. Simon is the one who replied to your email from 2 July and i just noticed he never actually sent the reply to you. ... When you apply to join ACC you get an account number. Yours is 850. When you are declined you get an email that includes the reason for being declined. The logical way to request an appeal/review/whateveryouwanttocallit would be to reply to the email not attempt to create a new account in the same name and when that didn't work write an email saying it wouldn't let you. If there is something prior to 2 July i missed it. The first application was addressed on 31 December 2011 when i declined you for a recent and seemingly serious block. The extent of the subsequent discussion can be seen further up this here talk page. We here all know what you wrote on 2 July. If there is an email from June it is not in the mailing list archive. If you submitted a request for a new account and it went through as you say i would have to ask you what user name that was done with as only one account exists which has the word "cyber" in its user name, the 850th.
Mlp is an admin at ACC and he said no a few hours ago. WilliamH, who applied the block in question, is also an admin at ACC. If William feels whatever you did shouldn't exclude you from ever being welcome at ACC i would consider this but if William feels your actions that earned the block were too serious despite any ignorance you may have had at the time i would have to consider this done and agree with Mlp.
If you wish to explain your side of the story regarding the block you can but do understand that the mailing list is available to everyone at ACC and as such isn't that confidential. Somewhere around 50 people would have access to it. I do not know what that story would be but it could help or harm your case. And i have no idea if doing so would be contrary to any terms related to your being unblocked by Mailer diablo. As an alternative to that, and honestly probably the better approach, we could have a couple of other ACC admins who are also members of the Arbitration Committee look into things relating to your BASC dealings and give their thumb up/down on your review. I know enough of the situation to decline you but regarding an appeal i am just not personally aware of the details to make an informed decision with a "yes" result.
Then please do contact WilliamH. He and I are on good terms. I understood what I was blocked for and the unblock conditions weren't strict.—cyberpower ChatOnline 11:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Adding on to what I said in response to your reply. I thought if an account is declined, it gets deleted. I had no idea that I had to email an appeal. I know now. The incident that got me blocked wasn't serious. Back in November, a dispute between two editors, who also received the same block, took place. I tried to stop it. My mistake when I tried to settle it was to contact the person who was being disputed. It regarded his nationality. When I received an answer I began posting it on Wikipedia which violated WP:OUTING to an extent. My unblock conditions were that I understood what I had done wrong and that I won't do it again. I confirmed that if it were to happen again I would step down from editing Wikipedia. I know better now and I know what I did was wrong. I would've handled that situation much differently if it were to occur again.—cyberpower ChatOffline 17:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, if WilliamH grants you access to ACC then it's a done deal, as far as I'm concerned, but IMO you need to contact WilliamH and make your case. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Look on his talk page. As far as he was concerned, he didn't know he was still an ACC admin.—cyberpower ChatOffline 18:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I commented there, I am now done with this issue, good luck. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw the comments on William's talk page. His surprise doesn't have much bearing on the outcome of this. I do know that i am now more interested in having the opinion of someone on the other side of this block of yours weigh in because they would be familiar with or able to review just what exactly was done. ACC handles confidential information and wikipedia:outing is a big no-no for us. That is one of those things where my imagination goes straight to worst-case-scenario. I guess it shall be waiting to find one of the ACC+AC folk and getting their opinion before you get a final answer.
If it makes you feel any better, this happened when I was still lacking a WP:CLUE. I do know from right and wrong and User:Gilderien let me access his account once to allow me to fix his JavaScript issues. He can personally confirm that. I understand your concern but please let me emphasize WP:AGF.cyberpower ChatOnline 22:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
My perspective: Cyberpower is very much correct when he says he was simply lacking a lot of WP:CLUE. The incident was not malicious whatsoever, and in the context of private information, I don't consider it likely that the same misguidance would be repeated. All in all, I don't believe the block should be held against him. WilliamH (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you WilliamH, this sheds new light on the whole indecent, at least in my opinion, and deserves a second look by ACC. I'll watch here for further opinions. Again thank you for the insight. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Asking cyberpower678 to be patient while waiting for someone familiar with the details to assess things got him telling me to, effectively ignorantly, assume good faith in spite of a block history which is "clear evidence to the contrary" and approve him. If cyberpower678 had been patient i would have remained more on his side than i now am. There is this little bit known as wikipedia:demonstrate good faith. I was demonstrating good faith by entertaining this when others were not at all inclined to and i feel i had wikipedia:assume good faith shoved in my face because it wasn't happening as fast as cyberpower678 wanted it to and that is not a demonstration of good faith on his part. I can't make AGK or Hersfold or WilliamH be available to assess this when i want them to. I too had to be patient. For the sake of not splitting this across many talk pages i was looking for any of them on IRC. I thought one of them would show up somewhere i was looking (Hersfold does often come by the ACC channel) but if they did it was after i had stepped away. Normally if there is a block the circumstances around the block have not been oversighted and i can assess things fairly easily and quickly. Being told the block related to dissemination of private information was actually all the more cause to have someone with the access check to see just what was done to bring about the block. Having been rubbed sore i think it best if someone else decide because, cyberpower678, you won't like my answer at this time.
What do you mean shoved? I think you are misinterpreting things. I was merely trying to convey that I have only but good intentions. I'm sorry if I came across as insulting to you and I always do my best to demonstrate good faith. I didn't rush anything. I waited patiently too waiting for what WilliamH had to say. I didn't tell you to approve me without comment from WilliamH. I think you misunderstand my intentions. I am perfectly capable of waiting and am willing to have it last as long as it needs to get a definitive answer.—cyberpower ChatOffline 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What do i mean? Really? You want to go there? Telling me you feel the need to emphasise the assume good faith policy... well that is generally something one would say when they believe the person they are addressing is not acting in good faith toward them. Given your block history is "clear evidence to the contrary" the assume good faith policy is not applicable to you in this situation. And yet i was trying to. It would be highly irresponsible of me to approve you on blind, ignorant good faith given your history. You can well imagine what it is you could have done to get blocked and then have your actions oversighted. It could have been huge or it could have been minor. But it was oversighted and i can't see for myself. You told me but there exists the possibility you were lying and i would be in trouble if you were lying and i had simply taken your word for it. Hence 3rd party corroboration was sought. Doing so is totally in keeping with the assume good faith policy, in situations where assumption is not appropriate. No need to emphasise it because doing so would likely be antagonistic. William did come back with a thumbs up ok but not before your emphasising a need for assumption of good faith that was directed toward me.
As for a definitive answer, i don't know what Mark feels like doing but he has noticed this here today. If William wants to he can approve you himself. Most new user approvals are done by Mark or myself but any of the other 18 can if they so wish. You can access the list of admins and users without having to log in: Some are like William and have access primarily due to their having CU rights and ACC requiring CU review on certain requests. You are welcome to wait and see what Mark decides or to ask someone else. You did offend me and i am no longer appropriately impartial. If you had simply not made that comment 47 hours ago things would be different right now. And i would be remiss if i didn't point out that emphasising misapplication of a policy is not the best of ways to demonstrate your satisfying qualification # 7.
Oh. I apologize for offending you. I did not wish to come across that way. If it makes a difference, I will gladly take back that statement about emphasizing good faith. I also didn't mean to convey that you were assuming bad faith. I know it's difficult to accept the nature of my block which is why I stated assume good faith. I should probably have been more careful in my choice of words.—cyberpower ChatOnline 22:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Cyberpower678, I am not going to comment on the discussion between you and Deliriousandlost accept this, I feel I must point out, I do not think WP:AGF applies to a situation where a block due to oversight issues is concerned, having said that, I do not have many interactions with WilliamH but, I been around long enough to know that editors do not get to his position without community trust, I have also bounced this issue off a couple other user who have told me they do trust (also) WilliamH, so my official opinion about your acceptance at ACC is I no longer consider the block an issue. This brings me to another issue we have to consider when accepting new users at ACC, at the moment we do not have a backlog or shortage of users or requests, this can change every few months and usually does, my suggestion is wait a couple months and give ACC a poke to see if we need more help. I am glad I was able to come to this conclusion and again good luck on all your endeavors within this great project. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 22:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you and if you do need more helpers, feel free to give me a poke. I am glad my block issue has been settled.—cyberpower ChatOnline 22:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Cyberpower678, please let me clarify, the block issue is not an issue with me. I am but one of 20 ACC admins. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 00:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
If any other admin wanted to know more about my block or are skeptical, I will simply refer them to this discussion and let them draw up their own decision; however, I would more likely be contacting you when I make that poke.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
You can't un-speak what is spoken. You can't un-write what is written. You can't un-do what is done. You can accept what has been and carry on adjusting your course accordingly. You offended me by accident and now you tell Mark you are going to poke him for consideration at ACC later to see if then there is a need for more people. Interesting. And concurrent to all of this you are requesting to be an Arbitration Committee Clerk Trainee. In early June you apparently got no response and in July you tried again on both fronts. I can appreciate the desire to contribute but AC clerks are very experienced people. They are more selective and less open than ACC. Perhaps you should aim a little more humbly to start.


I wanted to thank you for suspending my tool access. Cheers - 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the circumstance i am not sure if this is a note of acknowledgement and acceptance or of sarcasm. The error wasn't really minor and ignoring it wasn't something i would entertain even if someone else hadn't pointed it out to me.
Maybe we can overcome concerns? 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


Hey Deliriousandlost, I'm more active as a user now and would like to start helping over at ACC. I was wondering if you could reactivate my account? Thanks! James (TalkContribs) • 10:22pm 12:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for completeness: MOX is renamed at most projects and identified. [1] Although I don't understand why he is using somehow two accounts simultaneously. mabdul 12:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Fridae'sDoom was renamed to Ancient Apparition which was then renamed to M.O.X. Projects he was not active on were not renamed. Except for MediaWiki Commons where James here has managed to have two separate accounts, each with enough edits to secure the SUL per most peoples' standards. [2] [3] They haven't be in simultaneous use. I looks more like a case of "o shit, i forgot to get that renamed".
*Ancient Apparition @ simplewiktionary AND @ testwiki need to be renamed before you accidentally create a dupe there in your newest user name.
So, where are the "two accounts simultaneously" being used?
Is that going to be a barrier? My renames were rushed because of real-life harassment, I was more careful to not mess up SUL for the first rename, but was unfortunate enough that it wasn't the case second-time round. I'll have those other accounts you mentioned renamed as well. Thanks for reminding me! :) James (TalkContribs) • 8:58pm 10:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That is not the delay. Mabdul said you have been using two account simultaneously. Apparently he sees something i am overlooking so i am waiting for the details on that. Or a clarification or retraction. Something.
No, I forgot about the SUL for AA post-rename. AA on enwiki didn't have all the edits transfer to this account, hence why it has 500 edits. I am not using the two accounts simultaneously, I just didn't bother chasing up the rename venues on every WMF project for SUL purposes. James (TalkContribs) • 4:47pm 06:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Any progress? James (TalkContribs) • 10:01am 00:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Record Production invites you to join[edit]

Greetings Deliriousandlost
You appear interested in record production Record Production is interested in you
We hope you will join our WikiProject and with EzSign, it really is simple to join. Use the link below to create your signup page, and then save the page. That's all it takes, and I hope you will join. In any regard, thanks for your efforts to improve this topic. They haven't gone unnoticed.

76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

ACC Email[edit]

Thank you Deliriousandlost, damn good email.... as usual. See ya around. Mlpearc (powwow) 08:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update.[edit]

"If you want it on the 27th then ask Bell to change it. Or crazy idea: stop being so lazy as to not even check to see if maybe Diane made a typo @ tv-eh. CTV has been promoting it as starting 20 Sept for a while now. Nice commercials too"

I'm not sure how much of this comment was sarcasm, but I think you could have been a little more gracious.

I don't "want" the date to be anything in particular. I just wanted the date to match the source. I have been suggesting that someone could provide a better source for days, first hinting and then explicitly, but people have just changed the date with no comments. This behavior looked like vandalism.

I don't know these people (Bell or Diane), I don't watch CTV, and I haven't seen the commercials. So from here it seems a lazy person might have ignored the fact that the date in the source didn't match the one in the article. Or, a lazy person might have chosen not to provide a new source when she knew there was one.

Thanks for finally providing a source with the correct date.

Oak Splitter (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer[edit]

Christmas tree 02.svg 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 a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Merry Christmas[edit]

-- Cheers, Riley 19:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Bill Brioux's blog as a reliable source for viewership numbers[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the response about putting the Bill Brioux blog reference back in the Cracked article. I do understand that Brioux works in the space and blogs regularly about TV, but the point of my edit (I tried to convey this in the edit comment) is that Brioux is not generating these numbers; he's copying and pasting those from the source that actually measures or estimates viewership. For example, CBC itself would be considered a primary source for viewership, though their own reports of viewership might still be acceptable (if qualified). Ideally, a secondary source measures or estimates or verifies viewership and reports it. Hopefully we can agree that such a source would be the best reference, rather than yet another person in the chain (Brioux) copying and pasting into a self-published blog. I'm not suggesting Brioux is adding bias, but mistakes happen, and I don't see him making any claims of editing or others involved in fact-checking. So if his blog would simply link to ITS source of numbers, then our readers could verify for themselves. (The link in question.) Stated simply: where does Brioux get his numbers from (surely he's not creating them), and why do we not let our Wikipedia readers know about it? Perhaps we will disagree on this -- have a good day. --Ds13 (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

replied on Ds13's talk page where this began.

Hi Again[edit]

I hope you don't think I'm an awful person. I'm not going to say much. I've given this 6 months of thought and I'd still be interested in joining ACC. Any opinions?—cyberpower ChatOnline 17:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would want to see what you have been up to before deciding but you don't have any more issues with blocks and you have submitted the required identification. Answer tomorrow.
Thanks.—cyberpower ChatOnline 03:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Change of plans. Having discussed this with a few other ACC admins there is a single thing all of us do seem to agree on - we don't really know why you are interested in joining ACC. For all of the correspondence here and in our email archive that is the one thing you never proffered. You have applied to join a variety of groups but you keep coming back to ACC. If you would care to explain why you wish to join ACC that would probably be a good thing. Thanks.
Widening my interests is one thing. Helping new users is another. ACC, I feel I'm ready to handle. I feel I have enough experience and policy knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially the privacy ones, that I can start assisting in ACC. Even 6 months ago, I was still over ambitious and wanted to join every possible group there is. I believe I have matured over the past 6 months and now have come to realize that I should start gaining experience first before applying to join a group. Joining AC Clerks I see is a bit out of my league at the moment, reserved for highly experienced users. My recent request to join BAG was because I truly felt I had a chance, and although not many participated there, there wasn't a flat out oppose, but there wasn't a full blown support either. I believe because I am good at keeping information confidential and that my judgement has improved over the months, at least I believe so, that another shot at ACC would seem appropriate. I also tended to wander about my contributions and I want to focus on specific areas of interest. ACC is one of them.—cyberpower ChatOffline 05:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
If I may jump in, I was one of the ACC admins that was talking about this last night. I want to comment that ACC, just isn't about policies left and right. Yes, it is a major part of ACC, and we are quite serious about our policies. But, we also take into consideration how you interact with the rest of the team, and more importantly how you communicate with our new users. Some of them are very very frustrated, and you will have to keep a cool head, and be willing to spell out for them step by step sometimes what they need to do. This can be quite difficult with non-english users. In a way, we are a mini OTRS for account creation. I have looked briefly through your contribs and talkpage partly (which I do for every user who applies that I'm considering, most importantly the recent stuff) and I can't find much if anything about new user interaction, which is a big part of how I make my decision. Please don't get me wrong, I don't see anything to tell me not to accept you right now, but I just want to be sure you know that we aren't just another process, and not everything is black and white. Also something I want to point out that has been out on the mailing list and the interface for a while, but not in the guide, and I added it last night. These two rules are probably the most important rules at ACC right now, and I want to make sure you know about them. Is this something you feel up to? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, we are primarily and IRC community, and it helps very much to 1) have users who you can consult with in real time 2) people can tell you if your making a mistake before you do it. Do you use IRC at all, or would you be willing? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been attacked, and trolled at times. I haven't blown a fuse so far, and have been repeatedly commended for my patience. I keep a strict civility policy and take breaks if I believe that I have veered from that policy. I am excellent at keeping information confidential. I am willing to use IRC, but I respond promptly to eMails as well as I am regularly on my computer and it checks for new messages every minute. I am very well aware that ACC is not solely policies. It requires judgement and competence.—cyberpower ChatOnline 22:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's be a little realistic - from your past i wouldn't use "excellent at keeping information confidential". Perhaps something like, 'i learned from my minor mistake' would be more honest.
We do have a mailing list but email isn't our first choice for correspondence since one never knows when or if the recipient reads the email unless they reply. It is used more for general notices and communicating with those requesting an account be created for them. IRC is somewhat old-school but it does allow for more real-time communication.
I saw your note on BN about the inappropriate user names. It is rare that they be hidden or purged in any way but i am glad to see you have some understanding of what isn't appropriate for a user name. Also, asking that someone else's admin rights be transferred to you might not be seen as a joke. The wrong person taking it the wrong way could have thoughts of sockpuppetry dance around their mind. Joking like that with a new or prospective contributor can often result in much confusion.
While not everything is available on the wiki our guide is. wikipedia:Request an account/Guide Read it. Know it. Watchlist it. It lays out most everything but do remember it is a guide and therefore some discretion is allowed, such as when assessing activity of similarly named accounts or the similarity of user names (spoof-check isn't perfect). There is zero tolerance for incorrect closing of requests. Incorrectly assessing a request and then leaving it for someone else to handle can also lead to ones access being revoked but will almost certain lead to a little discussion. Why so strict? ACC is a first point of contact for most of those requesting an account and we don't want to start them off with incorrect information. Read the links. If you have any obvious questions this would be a good time to ask. When you have done so let me know and i will change the status of your account to approved. It is best to find someone in our irc channel to help you with the first one or two rather than risk screwing up and getting suspended on your first day. The IRC channel is private so DQ would i believe have to add you to the approved users list.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi, cyberpower. I am also an ACC admin so if you are approved, you can ping DeltaQuad, FastLizard4, or me in #wikipedia-en-accounts-unreg connect (the channel you will be automatically redirect to if you try to join #wikipedia-en-accounts connect) so that we can get you all set up in IRC. If you ever need anything, feel free to give me a shout/ping/whatever. :) -- Cheers, Riley 03:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for giving me an chance to get involved. I will read the links you provided and take it slow by watching a couple of requests first. -- this is an unsigned comment not from me but rather from cyberpower ChatOnline
Maybe i didn't make it clear. Read the links. Confirm you have either by saying you understand or ask any question you may have about the policy and guide. THEN i would approve you.
That's what I'm doing. I haven't read them yet though as I was sleeping. I got what you meant. I'll let you know when I have read it.  :)—cyberpower ChatOnline 12:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done After having read that, I definitely will ask for guidance on the first couple of requests.—cyberpower ChatOffline 13:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
If I might butt in here too, as another ACC member: I would highly, and let me say again, highly recommend reading and actually taking notes on the username policy. I'd probably recommend in fact reading through it slowly at least three times. It can be a very touchy thing to apply as there are a lot of fine lines to navigate, especially regarding promotional usernames. Remember that on every request you need to do a significant investigation to ascertain whether the name is promotional or not, but to only decline on that basis if the username promotion is unquestionable. Other tricky areas in ACC include what to do when IPs are blocked and when there are similar existing usernames. Given the no-tolerance deal these are things to know well even before you begin. NTox · talk 22:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
NTox good advice and it seems this user has reviewed it for four days. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I have carefully reviewed it and am re-reviewing it, but knowing it through reading is different from knowing it from experience. You can read on how to operate a stickshift car, but you can't drive it until you have actual experience with the clutch and stickshift.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I changed your status to approved. Please don't have me regret that. Drive an automatic.
Thanks for approving. I'm going to take a look at the interface and see how requests are handled before touching one myself. Sticks are my thing though. They handle so much better on snow than automatics do and are less expensive to fix, not to mention more efficient gas mileage. :)—cyberpower ChatOnline 02:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


Reply ASAP Please. Love n' Peace//Only Love Can Heal Such A Scar// (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 needs your help![edit]

U2.svg Hello! This message is to inform you that Wikipedia:WikiProject U2 needs your input! Please join the discussion on the talk page!Miss Bono (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 invitation[edit]

U2 360-UTEOTW-Toronto.JPG This is an open invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject U2! If you would like to collaborate on articles and under this projects scope, you are encouraged to participate!

You may add yourself to our meber list below by clicking here!

Miss Bono (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

666 Park Avenue - revisited discussion[edit]

You have already been advised as to Wikipedia's stance on Facebook, as well as the method by which you could seek outside confirmation as to it's non-usability as a source within the article. The fact that this information has to be provided again is ranging your behavior as dangerously close to 'I Don't Like It', which is usually perceived as disruptive. Please utilize the RS Noticeboard to further your cause, as it is the firm belief on at least my part (Mr.Shiney can chime in if they so desire) that Facebook is a crappy, unreliable source of information where other, more reliable sources should exist. If they do not, you should take that as a strong hint that the information that you feel is important is not seen as such by notable, reliable sources. It is the latter from which we construct Wikipedia.
Please do not make me have to discuss this breach of etiquette on your part again, Deliriousandlost. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Although I can not argue your point here, the last line "Please do not make me have to discuss this breach of etiquette on your part again, Deliriousandlost." is very condescending and threatening. After reading that line I had to look at your account, your statement had me thinking Jimbo had a new boss. Relax - Mlpearc (powwow) 15:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just hate having the same conversation over and over again. Maybe my desire to see that happen here prompted a stronger response than was perhaps necessary. I've struck the text. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You know you are carrying this on in two places now, leaving about the same message both here and on the article's talk page. Your arguments have added up to American broadcasters' self-published websites are great as sources but those from any other country are absolutely not, any form of self-published source that isn't from an American broadcaster is unacceptable, the official Facebook accounts of non-American broadcasters are presumed to be either fake or compromised or otherwise unreliable regarding their broadcasts (with the implication that such would likewise apply to their broadcasts of domestic programming but that an American broadcaster's information about an Australian show would be more reliable). Your contributions to the article in question have so far amounted to complaining about the use of two notices posted on Facebook from Australian and New Zealander broadcasters about broadcast in their respective countries and the removal of such from the articles with the rider that others find sources which you do approve of, most of which you also have so far disliked and have used to suggest such broadcasts are irrelevant. That does indeed seem rather disruptive to me. What you are effectively aiming toward is an article which has no mention of anything non-ABC / non-American. I was against the 'English only' while many thought it great that things not happening in English were set-aside since this is English Wikipedia. Unless you are implying that Australia and New Zealand have some other dominant language i am pretty sure such broadcasts are within the limited scope of that policy i despise and therefore i am pretty sure most would consider your actions a step toward censorship.
"Please do not make me have to discuss this breach of etiquette on your part again." I share most of that sentiment however i do not see that you are making me and i do not feel this is a discussion because anything that isn't "yes sir" toward you seems unacceptable.
Actually, I brought the personal issue with what I perceived to be tendentious editing to your talk page; it doesn't belong in the article discussion page. You have suggested here and elsewhere that I have some preference for American sources; I do not. I am saying that Facebook is too changeable to serve as a relia le source for this article. If it is indeed as important as you seem to think it is, find a source froma newspaper, magazine, podcast, whatever. So long as it is reliable, I do not care where its from. Well, actually, let me clarify that: if its a bit about broadcast in NZ or AU, the source would be better off being from there. That is all I am saying. I am not suggesting you are some feckless shit-for-brains who has to be handheld through the editorial process. This isn't personal and this isn't about me. I don't expect (and don't want) your subservience. Just follow the rules that the rest of us have to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
You keep coming up with one-liners that really do express how i feel having read what you have to say. "Just follow the rules that the rest of us have to" is the latest such note. Something you just so far fail to appreciate is how media external to the USA functions. American broadcasters issue press releases like Wal*Mart sells candy canes at Christmas. American media both, print and digital, are in plentiful supply and lap up those press releases like they are Gatorade at a football game. Look to Canada and you will find most broadcasters retain some sort of archive of their press releases but if you look at any of those archives they will tell you just how infrequently they receive new content - days or weeks and for a few channels it could be months between press releases. There is not the massive Canadian media to report on things like the USA has. Does that mean things are not worth noting? Have you read any of the ABC press releases regarding the performance of Red Widow? They are arguably the best comedy ABC has right now. Most American broadcasters are really good at press-release-spam. From what i have been able to find it is even less as-you-want-it in Australia as the broadcasters' websites contain little content and most of the information is found on the broadcasters' facebook pages, directed to their audience rather than third-party media or advertisers. TVNZ isn't much better but the production company of Nothing Trivial have created their own website - - and while not as fancy streaming video based as the likes of ABC it is quite functional and informative. I am particularly impressed by what was selected as the title for the series premiere :) As for things changing, yea that is life. Life could change later today if North Korea follows through on that promised nuclear war. That is what has me awake right now. Broadcasters' websites change. Facebook as a whole changes. The changing of individual posts from broadcasters is i think a bit more of a gross generalisation. With the shift from static to dynamic content change on the internet is about as common as taxes are in the physical world. Dare i say it, the American broadcasters are a bit behind the curve since they are still to a greater degree relying on third-party communication with their audiences to bring in their audiences. ABC has to promote and schedule a cast interaction during Rookie Blue or Body Of Proof but when The Good Guys was on FOX the cast and some crew of their own free will sought out real-time fan discussions each week, no billboards or press releases required. So long as you want to impose American standards on references from the rest of the world you are going to run into such conflicts and given how many shows have fan bases built on Facebook rather than broadcasters' websites i predict this is only going to get less acceptable for you as American broadcasters begin to abandon their own websites much like Australian broadcasters have done. At one time it was and now it is and in a few years it is likely to be
As a bit of an FYI i use my facebook account to chat with a cousin on the other side of the country and that is it. I generally find it a massive public window on what not so many years ago would have been considered not-for-public-consumption. It is not my being a fan of facebook but my recognising that different broadcasters in different markets approach things differently and when in Christchurch....

I think you offer an uncommon insight into how media works there in the Land Down Under (does anyone actually still call it that?), and you should go to the Village Pump or to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to make a case for a caveat to our handling of Facebook sources. I've only been abroad a few times, but it seemed that Facebook was identical in each place, and while tv stations might take advantage of the free source of publicity that FB represents, it is a basic underpinning that FB is rather unstable for that sort of use. It's like a wikia for a given show. Rumors and marketing blur the line between citable fact and outrageously baiting fiction. If you can convince the good people at the Pump and RSN that it isn't always like that, you might be able to alter how the Editorship handles these sorts of problems. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you know how much i despise your inability to properly indent your comments per the standards and practices of this website? You seem to out-dent every time you write anything anywhere i have ever seen you write anything. Are you trying to feature what you have to say? It sure does appear that way.
Travelling abroad and wondering if Facebook looks different! OMFG LOL
Facebook is unstable like wikia and is full of rumors and marketing blur .... so i can edit the posts of TVNZ to say they are going to be broadcasting live from the North Pole tomorrow? Do you actually know how much rumour and marketting bullshit is found in most of what are considered the most reliable sources for shows such as 666 Park Avenue? Rumour and marketting are the cornerstones of the 21st century American economy. You may know them by their collective name BUZZ.
You clearly have no concept of the basic fact that i can't create a post on Facebook in the name of the broadcaster i fancy in the moment any more than i can right now be talking to myself here with the use of both your account and mine. You are functioning on the premise that Facebook is hacked and faked.
You hate Facebook. You called non-American broadcasters only slightly better than some dude in his mother's basement making up shit. You have proven yourself extremely bias and it is really time for you to go away.
You might want to take a suppository-sized chill pill and relax, D. I am trying to help you; stop acting as if I am continuously attacking you. Facebook can be manipulated, and easily. Anyone can create an account to mimic a company. I certainly could, were it not, you know, a dick move,
I offered you a suggestion about how to go and change the rules - rules that you clearly dislike. Instead, you choose to ignore that sage advice and attack me. Buddy, I am not your problem here. Since you cannot seem to man up and deal civilly with me, I'm going to disengage from you now. Good luck with dealing with all that control-based anger. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I asked you to shove off; you chose to stick around and tell me once more what a saviour to me you are trying to be.
You are the biggest control freak i have ever encountered. Yes, you indeed have made me angry. That is why i am not replying to anything as quickly as i would if this were a productive conversation. You won't stop, even after i ask you to leave. You keep leaving messages for me on my talk page telling me how i am all wrong and now crazy and you never once do you address a single thing that had me engage you in the first place. You quite literally did tell others that you did not approve of the references used and likewise disapproved of the alternatives proffered all the while never actually offering anything yourself but expecting others to do it for you to satisfy you. Do you think that makes people happy? Do you think that demonstrates your need to control? You spew nonsense and misquote policies with most edits here all the while telling me i am needing your help! I knew standing up to someone who was on a crusade would be difficult but i did not think it would get this bad. You have managed to accuse me of every flaw you have yourself demonstrated, right down to dealing with me civilly. There is only so much absurdity one can tolerate and you long ago supplied too much to me. You can't even seem to acknowledge that someone is telling you something when it isn't in agreement with your own beliefs, let alone entertain the idea that the other person might actually be correct.
Telling me to shove drugs up my ass... really? WHAT THE FUCK!!!!
Telling you you are wrong and showing you why i do concede is an absolutely futile endevour, whether it be regarding your belief that people create fake accounts on Facebook for non-American broadcasters and then fill them with years of content just to get false information into Wikipedia years later or your belief that WP:NOTFACEBOOK actually has anything to do with use of Facebook as a reference. Those are the assertions of a man on a crusade and there is no way to respond which will ever be productive. That doesn't mean you are correct. It does mean you have quite exhausted my patience. It does not mean i will be shoving anything in my ass because you said to.
Move on. Go elsewhere. Stop generating 'you have a new message' notices when i am reading things.

Message from WikiProject U2 (April 2013)[edit]

Announcements and news for WikiProject U2

April 2013:

Update: there is currently a roll call going on at the project's talk page. If you are actively participating in the project please add your signature to the list. If you do not, you will be listed as inactive. Your name will be moved to the Inactive/former members section and/or the the project userbox will be removed from your user page.

Thanks for your help!

You are receving this because your username is listed in Category:WikiProject U2 members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile and move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list.

pjoef (talkcontribs) 09:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


Christmas Cookies Plateful.JPG Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
Hi Deliriousandlost, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Sue Rangell 19:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: ACC and identification[edit]

Thanks again for your patience in this - I got the confirmation back almost immediately. Here is the diff. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Deliriousandlost,[edit]

I would like to know, if you are interested in signing again for the WP:U2. We'd love to have you in our list of members. Thank you. Miss Bono [zootalk] 18:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Call Me Fitz[edit]

My friend-in-editing. You are dancing on the edge of vitriol, when all you had to say was "first run actually ran on HBO Canada Channel". Reading your comments on my talk page, and your comment on the edit itself, you'd think we had been in some huge back and forth argument, for days on end, about which channel Fitz aired on!

I would also suggest that you are using information that should be supported by outside references. I DO BELIEVE YOU regarding HBO Canada, based on you're having watched the show(?), but I made my edits based on factual references that are found in the wiki article itself, dated 2009 and 2011, which BOTH say that the show would be on MC and TMN in those years. (see article's reference #3: and reference #4: If Fitz' first run was on the channel labelled "HBO Canada", rather than a station labelled "Movie Central" or "The Movie Network", then simply add a better reference that supports your statement. No problem, easy fix, nothing to start a random fight about.

Aside from your unusual choice to create a non-fight, I do thank you for pointing out that the networks might need to be cleaned up and I am confident that you will find the references to support it. Your interest in the Fitz article is helpful and worthwhile, and perhaps your care-and-feeding of the article could have (should have?) included fixing up the 2 year old stale-dated text that was in need of updating for a very long time, rather than your unusual attack.

Carry on, kick butt, and good editing to you and yours. Jmg38 (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleriousandlost - maybe there's a way around this. You point out in your notes at the original edit (quoted here for the important information it provides) how the existing references are incomplete:

...yes, every source out there probably says MC & TMN for each season, including season 1, but if you actually watched the show in Canada you would know the sources you might look to cite are taking a bit of a misleading short-cut with their reporting because they could never be certain which actual channels would have the various original series. HBO Canada is a joint-venture of MC& TMN and for the past few years most jointly commissioned original series were on HBO Canada, except for Skins, but with season 4 of Fitz that was changed to have the show on the flagship channel of each company, "Movie Central 1" and "The Movie Network". Repeats might appear on any channel of MC & TMN as they fancy. Are there any references for this? Other than press releases from the owners of MC & TMN, probably not since most noone actually cares that much. That doesn't mean regurgitating the unintentional reporting errors of normally reliable sources is a good idea.

Since there is no reference (as yet) to support HBO Canada as the first run station, but given the fact that the 2 companies jointly own HBO Canada, what if you used the existing references and edited the article to say something like:

The series is co-produced by Movie Central (western Canada) and The Movie Network (central/eastern Canada), for airing on those two channels and their jointly-owned channel HBO Canada (Canada wide)

This covers multiple items with one sentence: co-produced... existing references back-up MC and TMN... takes advantage of the undeniable fact the HBO-C is owned by the other two... adds HBO-C to the sentence without having to find a specific reference to "extra" back it up. I think a random 3rd editor, if they were to read the sentence (or your variation thereof), would see it as helpful, truthful, and supported information. Your thoughts? Jmg38 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Test for Wikiproject U2[edit]

Test message for Wikiproject U2 to see if the membership list runs properly.
Sent by Pjoef to Miss Bono and Pjoef only. 13:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my fault. The bot does not recognize the <noinclude> TAG and this message has been sent to all the inactive users of Wikiproject U2. Remove this section whenever you want. Sorry once again. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 13:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind the note but the content of the follow-up i do. Call me inactive. I call you a vandal. I don't have the massive library of things U2 that others have and i see no value in making up some rather useless category to organise things by only to see it put up for deletion 3 days later. When Songs Of Ascent comes out.... but for now i am as active as U2 is :P

Deliriousandlost - My "Phlegming" account seems to have expired due to non-use, so I've started this "Phlegming2" account. I'd like to renew our 2010 discussion about the Young Americans article on Wikipedia. I'd like to do it in a less restrictive venue than this. Your have a PM from me in your FF account. I trust you remember me. Best regards, 06:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014[edit]

Hi DandL. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride![edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)