Jump to content

User talk:Coral Bay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Coral Bay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Coral Bay, thank you for your contributions on articles related to television. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of television-related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iHide a star

[edit]

Since I am not auto confimed yet can you get rid of the episode on the episode page of iCarly. Dan the creator of the show said the episode was scrapped. It was going to be 224-225 witch is now iTwins and iDate a bad boy with 217. If you do not get to it I will take care of it when I am Auto confirmed. ThanksChecker Fred (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny with A chance episodes

[edit]

I see ip's keep vandlising List of Sonny With a Chance episodes I would tak this to the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and have it protected.Checker Fred (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am going to report 75.28.154.17 to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, when I get a chance. If you cn first that would be great.Checker Fred (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I repeorted this ip. If you would like to add anything, do so Here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. ThanksChecker Fred (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

TV.com is a fan-run site, and thus does not count as a RS. Multiple sources list the episode as airing on January 30. Ωphois 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards - Release

[edit]

Why are u keep changing the table?? any reason?? if yes, please write them down in the comments field. thx FFall1986 (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let us know why you would want to change the release table of Wizards?? FFall1986 (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

[edit]

I have noticed an allarming amount of edits coming from you, that most likely involve reverting other users, without explanation first. When someone reverts you back, they at least give their explanation, but you reverting them with no explanation does not make a good Wikipedia editor. For instance, in List of Sanctuary episodes, I use the Series<br># thing because several other episode lists use this (Lost, Fringe, CSI: NY to name a few), and that there are several variations of this, and none of them are the wrong options. But then you change the tables with virtually no explanation, other than "The lock is without witdh is better" which I don't understand (and not that I want to offend, but your English doesn't seem that good).

In other instances, several fellow editors seemed to be against you on several other episode lists, so you seem more like a one-man army out here. Discussion is important if you have a disagreement, so that a resolution can come to this. If you don't start discussing the reversions you made, I may be forced to report you to the Administrators' noticeboard for your disruptive editing, and they'll take action (probably giving you a temporary block). I'm trying to help you out here, so you can become a better editor. Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

You have been edit-warring across a number articles - most recently List of Sanctuary episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wizards of Waverly Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - but other articles too, over the past week. It is not acceptable to use reversion in this manner and it is doubly unacceptable when you have not once attempted to resolve the disputes on a discussion page. For this reason, I have blocked you from editing for 48 hours. If you do not modify your approach to collaboration with other editors, it may be necessary to look at longer term measures. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} CIreland (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Bad episodes

[edit]

Why do you keep changing the table formating of the article when it's the one most lists use?–FunkyVoltron talk 17:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

[edit]

Rosie, you're back to not using edit summaries, and being inflexible about your edits. You're going to be blocked again if you're not careful! Drmargi (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Extras

[edit]

The extras on a DVD are the things above and beyond the featured episodes. So, for the new iCarly DVD, the "iFight…" and "iDate…" episodes, even if they are classified as special episodes because of their length, are not extras/bonus material. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Castle episodes

[edit]

I have created a new section to discuss the current edit war over the table headings at List of Castle episodes. Please join the discussion here before making further edits. We need to come to a consensus. Your constant warring is not productive. Thanks.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie, we've been here before! Let's discuss. You're using Sanctuary as an example for your version, but have warnings for edit warring on that page, so I'm not sure it's the article that best supports your edit. My way or the highway isn't the best way to edit; it tends to get you blocked, as you well know. Drmargi (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

Rosie, please remember to include edit summaries unless you are reverting vandalism. Specifically, explain your reasons for changing things that are fine the way they are. Your edits to tables often make them more confusing to novice editors, rather than making them more self-explanatory. For example, your edit here [1] reverted an edit to change code from "aux1" and "aux 2" to "written by" and "directed by." This is a good thing! Please try to err on making things obvious, not more difficult. Thank you. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, your claim here [2] that the reason for your change was that the "informations for season 2 are incorrect" is ridiculous. You know you changed a whole lot more to that table than just that information. If the season 2 info is an the issue, revert that only. PLEASE, not only leave edit summaries, but LEAVE ACCURATE ones! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Stone?

[edit]

Why do you keep reverting my Season 2 updates on Aaron Stone. One, there no reference that Season 2 is premiereing February 10, 2010 but February 24, 2010 by my source. Two, I followed all the rules by posting the info and a reference. You should probably post a DISCUSSION in the Talk Page and not just keep it to yourself so we can discuss the issue as said in the Wikipeida Rules. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for opening a discussion (which you didn't). Next time, please open a discussion after 2 reverts so you don't get in trouble for the 3-revert rule. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again you broke the 3-Reverting rule. I asked you to open a discussion in the talk tage (which you are doing in the View history tab NOT the discussion page). If you do not reply back to this message or open a discussion in the Talk Page, I will be happy to report you to the administration and you will be blocked. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the episodes with a reference and under it's own section "Upcoming Episodes." The episodes are referenced as episodes not season 2 episodes. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constant reverting without a reason

[edit]

Rosie, you must learn to give edit summaries explaining why you revert someone's edit. This is really getting old. I do not understand why you insist on entering into potential edit wars by reverting pretty much anyone's edit to anything. It appears that, in your mind, your way is the only "right" way. This is especially frustrating when an editor gives a reason for their edit, yet you give no reason for the reversion. An example of this is here on the List of 10 Things I Hate About You episodes page, where I gave a reason for my edit, yet you did not give one for the reversion. So, what is your logic? Do you have a reason?

As I said in MY edit summary, the automatic current date information at the top of the episode page gives the reader a false belief that the page is up-to-date. The current date is not necessary, nor is the number of total episodes that have aired. The table tells you the answer. It is not a requirement for an episode list, especially one that is so short. This code is completely unnecessary and gives the wrong impression to the reader. So, Rosie, I am waiting for your answer. What is your logic for your reversion? Please enlighten me. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that you need to give honest, truthful edit summaries. Saying you are reverting vandalism when you are not is called lying. I truly believe you do this to draw less attention to your constant editing to have it "your way". If someone has a different opinion than you, that does not make their edit vandalism. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. You are well aware of the need to provide edit summaries, and accurate ones at that, this requirement having been discussed with you several times. Do not simply revert. Explain the resons for your changes. If you do not, your edits can be seen as vandalism. AussieLegend (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop edit-warring. You have been asked to provide accurate edit summaries and yet continue to refuse to do so. Please explain why you wish to change the table on the article's talk page. DO NOT simply keep reverting other people's edits. AussieLegend (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. You have been warned numerous times about reverting without an edit summary, as well as edit warring. This must stop! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes

[edit]

Regarding this edit, you were asked to discuss your proposed change on the talk page. In your previous incarnation as 1989 Rosie, you were advised of the necessity to do this several times and finally acknowledged that you understood the requirement.[3] You were also advised that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a flimsy argument to use.[4] You seem to have forgotten all that you have been told and what you agreed to, just as you did when you received this warning. I'm not going to bother to tell you not to simply keep reverting others without explaining why because you've been told that many, many, many times and just continue to ignore it. All that's going to happen is that you're going to end up blocked again for your disruptive editing. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Life Unexpected. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet case

[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1989 Rosie. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for disruptive editing by continued ownership and misuse of undo on several articles. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 09:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Fall

[edit]

Sie werden von sockpuppetry vermutet, also bedeutet es, dass jemand vermutet, dass Sie der Anwendung von mehrfachem Wikipedia verbotene Zwecke erklären. Bilden Sie sich bitte vertraut mit den Anmerkungen für den Verdächtigen, dann reagieren Sie auf den Beweis an Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1989 Rosie. Danke. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. How many times do you need to be reminded of this? AussieLegend (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an active discussion of the placement of the table of contents on the List of Leverage episodes article. Do not make changes to the placement of the TOC until consensus is reached for placement as you've edited. Drmargi (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Theleftorium 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as List of Kick Buttowski: Suburban Daredevil episodes, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.animationinsider.net/article.php?articleID=2322, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:List of Kick Buttowski: Suburban Daredevil episodes saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Theleftorium 13:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from article to article

[edit]

Hi. I note that you recently performed a split of material to the article List of Southland episodes, and I just wanted to drop you a note to point out a few things about the procedure. As Wikipedia:Split sets out, when we split material, we have to provide a direct link to the source article. This is necessary because Wikipedia's contributors do not release their material into public domain, but retain rights to authorship under the terms of our licenses, CC-By-SA and GFDL. This wikilink satisfies that requirement by allowing readers to access the history and see who contributed what and when. Usually, we put into the edit summary something along the lines of "Split from Southland (TV series)". Then, we note the split as well in an edit summary at the source article. That would read like "Material split to List of Southland episodes", in this case. This helps make sure that the article is not later deleted, as it cannot be as long as the article to which the material has been split remains. We also have an optional template for the talk pages of both articles at {{Copied}} (instructions for using it found there). I have fixed the problems with this split, but I wanted to let you know for future use. Thanks, and if you have any questions about this, please feel free to leave a line at my talk page. Theleftorium 15:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, List of Past Life episodes, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.tv.com/past-life/show/76873/episode.html http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:cR8OqL7j78EJ:www.tv.com/past-life/pilot/episode/1319719/summary.html. As a copyright violation, List of Past Life episodes appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. List of Past Life episodes has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Sarilox (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

[edit]

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as The Vampire Diaries (TV series)‎. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed this sequence of edits, I don't find Coral Bay's indicate any ownership of the article, and certainly no more than your own. I generally find that's an argument used by editors determined to have their own way, and is very, very hard to prove. As for the edits themselves, the standard for episode count, per the infobox guidelines, is to elevate the count as the episodes run as we cannot be sure that all episodes produced will be broadcast, nor do we know the firm order or pattern of broadcast. To insist on listing 22 episodes when only 14 have been broadcast violated WP:CRYSTAL as we have no advance knowledge of future plans of the broadcasting entity, just what the stock of episodes is. That it's been done in other articles and gone unchallenged doesn't make it right. Moreover, when you saw a potential edit war develop, you had the opportunity to take this issue to the discussion page, and chose not to. I would suggest you look to your own editorial decisions in this circumstance rather than to lay blame solely on Coral Bay. Based on what I've seen of each of you here and elsewhere, you both could stand to revert less and talk more. Drmargi (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)--Drmargi (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:CRYSTAL, your edits to Pretty Little Liars (TV series) asserting a "first season" are premature since no episodes have aired, and only a pilot has been confirmed to have been produced. Yes, ABC Family has announced an initial pickup of 10 episodes (and this is noted in the article), but anything can happen. There is no value to adding premature information to this or any article. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 21:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also just realized that our recent back-and-forth reverts may be construed as a violation of WP:3RR. I'm going to let your last edit stand in good faith to end this situation, but I wanted to point this out to you in case you are unfamiliar with the policy so that you may avoid being blocked in the future.— TAnthonyTalk

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pretty Little Liars (TV series). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Pretty Little Liars (TV series). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Coral Bay reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: 1 week). EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the further information at User talk:EdJohnston#Coral Bay, I have extended the block to indef. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/1989_Rosie/Archive. I also notice that a large fraction of all your recent edits are reverts of the work of other editors. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced you will follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do yet. -- Coral Bay (Diskussion 21:16, 22. Feb. 2010 (CET)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coral_Bay&oldid=1257439110"