User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Cyphoidbomb, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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! Kirachinmoku (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fanboy and Chum Chum

This section has been left blank intentionally.

FB&CC episode list

I am trying to make a new template for the seasons 1 & 2. But I am not finished with the Fanboy & Chum Chum episode list. Please don't erase my work because I'm still working at it. It will take about two to five days. Thank you for asking!

The old template is not really made for a episode list. It's just made for short info, facts, etc. I am also trying to make the episode list nice and clear. And the reason I'm delete the season 2 episodes is that they are not all true. The season 2 has not aired yet. So until they air, I will add the episodes back. Happy St. Patty Day Brandon J. Marcellus (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, had to re-stock the page with solid info. If you want to try your hand at reformatting the page, please work in a sandbox environment, instead of editing the page piecemeal over an unreasonable span of time. Also, please do not delete useful, reliable data. If you have questions about what sort of information should be in this list, please refer to Wikipedia:Television episodes, with emphasis on the examples of "List of" pages. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Hi fellow Wikipedian, I'd like a second opinion on this situation, if possible, please: Recently, edits to List of Fanboy and Chum Chum episodes were made by user Joseph Fleisher. In one instance, he blanked 5 episode titles from S2 that were verified by one of the writers. He also blanked the working template that was being used. I asked about this on his talk page, but he didn't respond. Today the user unilaterally removed information about episode writers and directors from S1. There's no explanation in his edit summaries, and no discussion has been opened on the discussion page. Since I'm not the boss of the Wiki, I wanted to get a second opinion from a peer -- do you think these changes (deleting useful data) constitute vandalism? People work hard to submit useful information, it seems a shame to blank it for no reason. Thanks in advance! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, although I can't see any vandalism really, the user in question may be violating the Three Revert Rule. I have left a warning on their user page. - Rich(MTCD)^{Talk Page} 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Rich. I'm re-flagging this for help, because my question is more aimed at the unjustified removal of data. My opinion is that the episode list is richer with constructive data, such as episode director and writer names. Deleting that data without reason or discussion seems ill-spirited to me, especially for a first-time editor to that page. I edit that page a lot, so I want to make sure I'm not just being irrationally territorial. What are the guidelines on deleting content unilaterally? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Blanking" or removal of sourced content can be considered vandalism in some cases. There are two essays on this subject (note that essays are not policy) that may help you decide if they are:

• Wikipedia:Blanking sections violates many policies
• User:Samuel Blanning/Blanking

The best thing you can do for now is to try and open a discussion with the said user for his actions. You should contact him directly in his talk page. The use in question seems to be doing the same thing in some other articles: Special:Contributions/Joseph_Fleisher. But his edits do seem to be in good faith. I do not know enough of the subject nor the conventions of said shows. So I can't comment further on that. Leaving the template on for now in case someone else knows more about content disputes like this.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 04:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Obsidian Soul, thank you for your input. I'll check out those articles. I did attempt to contact the user, but did not receive a response, and since my attempt to contact, the user removed the director/writer information, so I question the good-faith argument. In the past, that episode list has suffered a great deal of blanking and vandalism; users have deleted episode synopses with no explanation or seeming motivation, so I am a little defensive about the content. I do believe that some data, like the episode title references don't really contribute too much to the discussion. I've been tempted to delete them myself, but I believe the page should be a community effort, and I ain't trying to be the Wiki police. Thanks for your help! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, like you said, no user has any real authority over another in Wikipedia, so if attempts to contact user fails, you can look for consensus elsewhere. But be careful that you do not edit war over it. You can request for mediation from other interested parties from the Wikiproject the article falls under. If he can not be drawn into discussion, disruptive editing in violation of consensus can be a cause for blocks.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 07:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree w/ Obsidian Soul, but have a specific suggestion, Cyphoidbomb;

• Start a new section on Talk:List of Fanboy and Chum Chum episodes saying clearly something like, "I think the following should be added or removed from the article because <reason>" - keep it short, to the point, and refer to policies and guidelines with links (such as, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BALANCE, etc).
• Then, post a new, short note on the talk page of the other user, saying "Hi, I've started a discussion on [[Talk:List of Fanboy and Chum Chum episodes#WHATEVER YOU CALL THE SECTION]], please comment, thanks"
• Add a similar request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nickelodeon, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Keep the notes there short, and totally neutral - ie just 'please commment HERE, thanks"
• Wait a while. Maybe a week.

Hopefully, others will agree to your suggestion - in which case, you've got consensus, and can go for it - regardless of whether or not the other user can be bothered to comment.

And then, if they persist in removing it (against consensus) they can be warned - referred to the discussion and consensus - and, if necessary, even blocked to prevent further removals against the consensus.

See WP:TALKDONTREVERT.

Hope that helps.  Chzz  ►  11:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:68.37.124.56

Hi. I've blocked this IP for 24 hours to see if that will get through to them - if they continue after they're unblocked, you should make a new report to WP:AIV -- Boing! said Zebedee (tal0k) 10:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Boing!, user is misbehaving again with emotional edits. Filed new report at AIV. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like only one edit since the block expired, so I've reverted it and blocked again for 48 hours. As it appears to be only this one IP making unsourced changes at the moment, I don't think we need to protect any pages just yet - we can see how it goes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources for TV Episodes

Hi, I saw your level 4 warning to 69.120.229.30 today. However frustrated you might feel about another editor making "bold" changes, issuing final warnings probably isn't the best way forward, given that you've only 159 article edits under your belt and all of those seem to be around Fanboy and Chum Chum. It may be that you have some personal connection with that series – in which case please read and understand Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines – or perhaps you just love the series and feel you know it better than anyone else. That's understandable, but if you want to contribute to Wikipedia you have to leave those strong feelings at the door. All we care about is neutral content that is sourced to independent reliable secondary sources. If you disagree with someone's (non-vandalism) edits, it's usually more effective to start by debating sources and neutrality on the article's talk page rather than leaving final warnings on the contributor's talk page. Likewise, your own edits in disputed areas should be impeccably sourced (i.e. written by professional journalists/academics rather than being primary sources or user-contributed). Hope this helps - Pointillist (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pointillist, I appreciate your input, and I will brush up on my understanding of the relevant WP guidelines you've raised. Thank you. Both Fanboy and Chum Chum and List of Fanboy and Chum Chum episodes are vandalized quite regularly. IP users often come by and delete content (a full season's worth of episode synopses, for example) and very rarely leave explanations for their "contributions". In the case of the L4 warning, I felt that the blanking of all S1 episode synopses (yet again) in addition to the history of unconstructive edits from that IP was worthy of the L4 warning. The feeling seemed reasonable to me after noticing that you issued a Last Warning 2 1/2 weeks prior, on March 28th. From your response, it's clear that I am wrong, so I am interested in hearing your thoughts on what you think I should have done differently. Are IP vandals allowed to vandalize a certain number of times per week before their warning level increases? And I did, in fact, do what you suggested; I first broached the question of episode synopses deletion in September 2010. There has never been a reply. Most edits at Fanboy and Chum Chum and List of Fanboy and Chum Chum episodes are made without an edit summary or any form of discussion. Requests for explanations are usually ignored. I've sought help from a few sources to try to establish consensus about article content, but nobody's contributed much of an opinion. Plus, I've opened numerous discussions in the appropriate places and tried to wait a reasonable time before taking any kind of drastic, unfriendly action. If nobody responds, how can there be consensus? If there's no consensus, what should these pages look like? With these obstacles in mind, how would you guide me to help deter vandalism on the page, encourage notable contributions instead of trivia, discourage poorly-written drivel and the unjustified blanking of useful data, and encourage rich and useful information for people who are interested in this cartoon? Thank you kindly, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, I think the key is to warn more often, so that when you make a report at WP:AIV it won't fail for lack of recent warnings. Apart from that, you're doing everything right—in particular asking the other editor to discuss changes on the talk page is always a good approach. There is a problem with so much of the material being unsourced: typically when people delete content aggressively I revert for "unexplained deletion of sourced content" but of course when there's no source there's no way to tell whether the deletion is unreasonable. Concentrating on sources can be a very effective way of managing disruptive situations, particularly where the editor is not a vandal but just someone with a different point of view (after all, we want to encourage contributors to work "within the system" rather than just blocking them). Anyway, I'll keep grinding away about sources until 69.120.229.30 starts using some. - Pointillist (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pointillist, I must say that I'm still confused about what I did wrong in the case of the L4 warning, or perhaps more to the point, how I could have gone about it the right way. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's really my fault, I think. Some of the contributions from this account are relatively useful, but they are spoiled by his/her refusal to leave edit summaries, provide sources, discuss on the talk page etc. I should have checked 69.120.229.30's history more thoroughly before I left a level 4 warning back in March. The admins at WP:AIV are understandably cautious when they don't see a progression of recent warnings (older warnings are discounted because the IP may have changed). If I'd left a level 3 warning then you'd probably have left a level 3 one too, and then it would be reasonable to go level 4 if the unexplained deletions continued, and then go to AIV if the disruption continued after that warning. Anyway, no harm done. - Pointillist (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Re TMNT (in case you didn't see it while I was archiving my talk page)

My concern with the shorter version would be that it would lead to more questions, as people wondered why the difference. As for the root of the controversy, it was about "ninja" being considered too violent for a children's show. (The Europeans apparently associated the term with assassin.) It could probably use a bit of better explanation in the section. As for the lead, maybe an internal link to the censorship section would be best. Something like:

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (known in Europe as Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles due to controversy)...

What do you think? oknazevad (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly common to see one (movie, tv, book, food product) title in the US and a different one overseas, but I like your work-around. Looks great! I'll go over the specifics of the controversy to see if I can tighten that up later. A pleasure doing business with you.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Further proof that wikicollaboration works! Good working with you. oknazevad (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Well, I don't necessarily see the need to remove old talk page posts that are of marginal relevance; at the time they were made the standards regarding what was "on topic" were more lax. I could as archiving the page, as it's a bit long and the threads are so old as to be irrelevant to the current state of the article. I think that's what I'll do. oknazevad (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
Message added 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your post at WP:AIV

WP:AIV is only for unambiguous cases of vandalism. Please consider bringing your concerns to WP:DRN instead. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Where does it say Fanboy and Chum Chum takes place in Florida? I looked everywhere, only to find that it takes place in the fictional town of Galaxy Hills. If I simply removed it from the category, how is that vandalism? I'm not on Wikipedia for the sake of causing problems, or getting into edit wars. I want to make articles as informative as possible. RadioHeart415 (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just noticed when comparing the previous edit to the one I made that was reverted. The edit I intended on making was the one regarding the article's categorization in Category:Television shows set in Florida. Honestly, I DO NOT know how my name reflects those other edits (I noticed the voice actor names were changed on purpose). Just in case, I changed my password. RadioHeart415 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

AIV report

Thanks for your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, perhaps you could respond to the message I put there (If it has gone by the time you read this, you can see it in this version of the page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi James, I'm happy to. I'm not necessarily familiar with most of the subject matter, but here's what I've noticed: 1) April 2 2012, user attributes "Fairly Odd Parents, a Nickelodeon show, to Disney Russia. Maybe true, maybe not. Probably not, but there are also no references. 2) June 12, 2012, user submits weird "Auditory 6-14 years" to Cartoon Network page. 3) User attributes Cookie Jar Entertainment as distributor of Fairly OddParents in Canada, but there is no mention of that on Cookie Jar's official website. http://www.cjar.com/cj_shows_library.php. 4) User attributes Cookie Jar Entertainment as, ostensibly, a co-production company for Fanboy and Chum Chum, which is patently false and again is not reflected at Cookie Jar's official website. 5) User has attributed Fanboy and Chum Chum, Random! Cartoons, Fairly OddBaby, etc to the List of Cookie Jar Entertainment programs, without references or any reasonable context. So, these contributions are suspect, and I could use a little help corralling the disruptions. Thank you, sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that it does look very much like vandalism, but it falls short of the blatant vandalism that it would take to justify a block without any prior warnings (your warning came after the last edit from the account). I have given another, more strongly worded, warning, mentioning the possibility of a block. If you see any more of the same dubious editing from the same editor, please feel welcome to contact me, or report again at AIV, or both. (Since I now know the history of the case I might be able to act quicker than another admin who finds an AIV report, if I am on line at the time. However, I may not be around, in which case AIV will obviously be more likely to be useful.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi JamesB, Николай Яковлев submitted another bogus edit. I issued a L4 vandalism warning on the basis that the edits from that account have been suspect from the beginning, the user received a warning from me *and* from you, the disruptions seem intentional, and more dubious edits have come in. Just a heads-up that administrative intervention may be if another dubious edit comes from this account. Thank you again, sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked the account for a week. Some of the edits are clearly deliberate vandalism. Others are dubious: could be vandalism, could be good faith but misguided. However, even if we give maximum assumption of good faith, we have some deliberate vandalism, and no attempt at all to take on board concerns in messages to the editor, so I think a block is justified. I hope this will cause the editor to think again and change their ways, so that a longer block won't be necessary. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Future Dates for TV Shows

{{Admin help}} Hello! I lurk on a bunch of pages and kind of through evolution, a lot of them deal with Nickelodeon TV shows. A lot of users, often IP users, submit future air dates with no sources. I've read WP:CRYSTALBALL and it seems dicey for users to submit future air dates, especially when shows get postponed quite often. Interested in an admin's perspective on this issue, so I can continue to be fair in my guidance. The most recent edits I've objected to can be found in the recent edit history at List_of_T.U.F.F._Puppy_episodes There was one undocumented future date from 68.255.104.51, which I reverted. IP user re-submitted. I reverted, invited to Talk Page, and contacted user on their own talk page. Then IP user 90.192.237.74 submitted the same info. Definitely don't want to edit-war. Appreciate your guidance. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a content issue, admins are not more qualified to answer that question than regular editors are, especially those at WT:TV and other related WikiProjects usually know about such things better than some random admin. That said, the question is usually whether the info could be sourced, not whether it is. Air dates way in the future are often speculation (unless they are season premiere dates) but dates that are less than 2 weeks away might not. For example, next weeks TV Guide will already include a schedule for 12 August 2012 and I think it can be assumed that some people (for example those working for it) know that schedule sooner than next week. Also, I'm no expert for US TV but here in Germany some TV guides publish the schedules for the next two weeks and I assume those exist in the US as well, so those will already include that date. Or, to say it another way: When considering such additions, see if you can find a source for them instead of reverting for being unsourced. That way you can avoid (possibly) unnecessary edit warring with editors who will not be experienced enough to understand what they are doing wrong and may actually be able to improve the page based on their edits. For example, a short Google search will soon uncover this TV Guide entry confirming the air date in question. Regards SoWhy 09:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sai and Bo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, autonomous robot! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"X, known in Y contexts, as Z" vs. "X, is known to be Y

The reason "X is known to be Y" is weasel wording is because we don't say who says that in what context. If you were to say "elevators, known in England as "lifts", it's not the same thing because it's clearly Englishmen who call it that. So if we were to say "Street dogs, known as urban free ranging dogs, are dogs that live in streets...", that'd be weasel wording because it doesn't make clear who calls it that. If we say "Street dogs, known in the scientific literature as urban free-ranging dogs", it may still need a citation, but not because of WP:WEASEL, because it obviously means "scientists who publish papers in scientific literature call them that". Now, it may still need a citation, but weasel wording doesn't have anything to do with it because weasel wording is saying things like "It is well known that Elvis was the best ever" or some such where it's not clear who knows this or why we should listen to them. You should only add "citation needed" tags to statements that you have some reason to doubt whether the statement is true or not and suspect that it might not be true. Chrisrus (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I appreciate your clarification edits on Street Dog. Thank you. Before I used the tag, I looked up WP:WEASEL. I found the tag appropriate to use, as my complaint about Street Dog met at least two of the criteria in the WP:WEASEL explanation:

1) "Vague attribution." In the Street Dog article it was not clear *who* referred to street dogs as "free-ranging urban dogs". Sure, scientists, but which scientists? One scientist? All scientists? The line "referred to in scientific literature" was vague and I believed warranted citation.

2) WP:WEASEL says weasel words are "statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different... or stronger in the way they are made." While the references now indicate that at least two scientists refer to street dogs in scientific literature as "free-ranging urban dogs," the article still implies that "free-ranging urban dogs" is a widely-used nomenclature for street dog/stray dog/feral dog in scientific literature. I, a casual reader, do not know that to be true.

So, I don't think I was too far off to use a WEASEL tag or a citation tag. But I was also a little sleepy.

Thank you for opening the discussion. Regards! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. What I intended to communicate was that, while the term "street dog" is a common name used and recognized by common people, that it's not the preferred term in scientific literature in a general kind of way, not just in those citations I chose to cite it. I just chose the first citation I found for on a Google scholar search for each wording of the term, but there were many, many more. I don't mean to imply that it is just these two ecologists who use this technical term for street dogs, but I didn't know how else to cite it. Should we add a bunch more, or what is the best way to establish that the terms are generally used in scientific journals? (by the way "free roaming dog is also found. Chrisrus (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm good as it is. To be honest, the term "free-ranging dog" sounded like a joke. My first reaction was to assume it as a pseudo-terminology similar to "free-range chicken".

I guess the only other thing that rankles me is "also known in scientific literature," which sounds to me like, "also known by geniuses." If you're okay with the current phrasing, let's keep it. Otherwise, I'd probably vote to change it to "also known as" and leave the cite. Your call.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: TMNT 2012

You are exactly right. The episodes themselves are the source for basic plot information, and need no outside sourcing. I mentioned that in my response on the talk page about film plot summaries, and it applies to TV shows as well. That said, two things to keep in mind. First, that unless its an article on an episode or the summary on the episode list article, a footnote mentioning which episode a particular fact comes from is a good idea, just to make clear where the info is coming from. The other thing is to remember that Wikipedia articles aren't for retelling the entire story; keep the character descriptions brief, punchy and general, don't get caught up in minor details. I'll take another look at the articles and remove tags that are marking sentences clearly sourced to the general series. oknazevad (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the edification, Oknazevad. I felt sure that my instincts weren't incorrect. I also agree with you on the issue of keeping the summaries short. I notice when other editors contribute, they bloat the descriptions, then I go in and clarify, and they wind up getting bigger. I've made bold edits by trimming bloat in other articles, only to be met with resistance. Some editors feel that an encyclopedia should summarize a work, and some editors believe that encyclopedias should contain exhaustive detail. Anyhow, if you feel inspired to trim, trim away!  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Geraldo Perez's talk page.
Message added 15:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Wild Thornberrys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bird of paradise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary vandalism?

Hello, experienced admin-type. I've suppressed vandalism here and there, but I'm not sure what to do here. This personality keeps posting irrationally hostile and inappropriate edit summaries:

History #1 and History #2

Any ideas how to handle this? The edits aren't glaringly wrong--they are often unsourced, so there's that angle. But I guess I don't know if the user should be reprimanded, and if so, for what? And what, if anything, do you suppose WP:AIV would do if the IPs were reported? I appreciate your thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I see they had a warning on the 27th and there have been no more edit summaries like that since. I have added another warning. If they do it again, an AIV report "continued uncivil edit summaries despite warning" should get action. JohnCD (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles response

When it came to Chris Bradford and Xever mutating into Dogpound and Fishface, I had to mention how they came into contact with the animals that contributed to their mutation.

Hi, thanks for responding. I understand why you want to include this information, and I think there is a cleaner, shorter way to deliver that information, rather than by parentheticals.

It was mentioned that Chris Bradford was bitten by Shredder's pet Akita named Hachiko while Xever touched a strange-looking fish. The action figure info for Fishface mentioned that Fishface has venomous fangs. We have yet to see Fishface equipped with a water-breathing rig and mechanical legs in the television series.

Okay, I watched The Gauntlet again and I was wrong to step on your inclusion of some of this info. The dog's name is clearly Hachiko and he does nip at Bradford. So, I apologize for that. However, I still don't know how we know the dog is an Akita, or that it is Shredder's pet. I think some of that is interpretive, even if there is a well-known story about a loyal akita named Hachiko. "Strange-looking fish" is definitely interpretive. I'm going to change that to "fish" or "fanged fish" or something.

If you want to reword some names, at least have the first names of those who have first names listed.

I don't understand what you mean.  :/

Outside of that, what do you think of the television series so far? Rtkat3 (talk) 2:27, December 26 2012 (UTC)

It's a pretty good show! Mikey and Donnie are hilarious. Also love Sean Astin's acting; his delivery is fantastic. Funny too.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The Problem Solverz

Hi, Cyphoidbomb. I've read all your message, and I say this to you. Always from the same official Facebook page of the show, I found other evidence confirming that this new season only postponed (so that source that I linked on the The Problem Solverz' Wikipedia talk) had been previously and officially announced on 2012. The sources are as follows: https://www.facebook.com/TheProblemSolverz#!/photo.php?fbid=282767245124916&set=a.138755752859400.26206.135969926471316&type=1&theater, https://www.facebook.com/TheProblemSolverz#!/photo.php?fbid=334781353256838&set=a.138755752859400.26206.135969926471316&type=1&theater and https://www.facebook.com/TheProblemSolverz#!/photo.php?fbid=348681111866862&set=a.138755752859400.26206.135969926471316&type=1&theater

Luigi1090 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Talkback

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Basalisk's talk page.
Message added 18:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Clivel 0's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clivel 0 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Bonusballs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bonusballs (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

G4

G4 is not going to return to DirecTV, all on account of going off the air in favor of the Esquire Channel. Don't you remember? ~~LDEJRuff~~ 4:59 15 January, 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I don't remember, but even if I did, my memory isn't considered an acceptable source. From the look of existing references, G4 was dropped in 2010 for lack of viewer interest, and didn't, as you wrote, go off the air "in favor of the Esquire Channel". Where can we read that DirecTV dropped G4 so that they could carry Esquire? Is it confirmed that they will broadcast Esquire? Does Esquire exist yet? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No. You win. ~~LDEJRuff~~ 15:35 15 January, 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Porque el amor manda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mexican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunjerbob

Uhh.....Why did u do that?Leave a note or question on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunjerbob (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did I do what? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

u destroyed my sandbox page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunjerbob (talk • contribs)

Your sandbox edit history only shows one edit, by you. Further, I would appreciate it if you'd please respond to posts the way other editors do, on the next line, and by signing your comments with four tildes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh,I'm sorry.I thought that the sandbox was a contrubiton page.So sorry. Leave a message on my article or on my talk page. --Sunjerbob (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Sunjerbob--Sunjerbob (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles-related

When it comes to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, we should at least have one "monkey" part linked under Tyler Rockwell, Rat King's rats could've helped Rat King escape mysteriously, Fishface had a hard time breathing after the mutation, the newsman with the long name mentioned things outside of the turtles like the rat invasion and Baxter Stockman's attack on TCRI, and we have no official confirmation that Leatherhead is an American alligator. Did I leave anything out? Rtkat3 (talk) 8:33, January 27 2013 (UTC)

The much larger issue is that the character summaries are already bloated and contain far more information than is appropriate for a main article page. I've raised this objection before on the talk page. The Rat King summary, for example, could use a paragraph break once we start talking about I, Monster. Bloat.

Yes, Rat King's rats could have helped him disappear, but that's OR. For an article like this, a perfectly reasonable description of Fishface, for example, could be something along the lines of: "Xever, a Brazilian street thug recruited to the Foot Clan by Shredder, was transformed into the fish-human monster Fishface." All the other facts about what kind of fish he was buying, or

As for "monkey", "weed", "plant", I explained on the article talk page why we don't need wikilinks to that. See WP:MOS:TV / WP:OVERLINK. So unless there's a different guideline I'm not aware of, I don't think the common words require links. There are only two species of alligators in the world, and this show takes place in America, so it's not unreasonable to make the logical leap, but it's certainly reasonable to remove "American" if you'd like, or to remove the wikilink.Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Problem Solverz

Hi Cyphoidbomb. I'll tell you a few things. Start by saying personally that I am not one of the administrators or a member of that Facebook page of the show (in fact I have never registered on Facebook) but a simple Wikipedia user; I after I posted my first space on the talk page (to post the source, which said officially that the new season of the show was postponed due to line-up issues problems, https://www.facebook.com/TheProblemSolverz#!/photo.php?fbid=376316252436681&set=a.138755752859400.26206.135969926471316&type=1&theater) and then read your message on the talk, I had tried a few weeks ago to answer it on the talk page of the show that in one of your account, but I never received a response from you. Then that Facebook page of the show is really official, just look and read carefully this source (https://www.facebook.com/TheProblemSolverz#!/TheProblemSolverz/info), and the three sources that I posted are mean and note that this season has been repeatedly confirmed and officially announced in 2012, and are the sources before this (https://www.facebook.com/TheProblemSolverz#!/photo.php?fbid=376316252436681&set=a.138755752859400.26206.135969926471316&type=1&theater). Finally, those two sentences I wrote the last of the three (https://www.facebook.com/TheProblemSolverz#!/photo.php?fbid=348681111866862&set=a.138755752859400.26206.135969926471316&type=1&theater), are taken from there to show that the same Facebook page (as well as being official) is also very close (perhaps for the administrator) at the same Cartoon Network. Luigi1090 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chrissy Snow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ingenue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Rybec's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

see my talk page

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Pablootoya19

Yup, it looks like this one has all the same signs as Rodolfootoya12. Definitely report it. Nate • (chatter) 08:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

{{subst:The Hard-Working Barnstar|I have gave you a barnstar for your hard work. Sunjerbob (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)}}

		The SpongeBob Barnstar
		Here is a barnstar.Sunjerbob (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		You are like royalty to Wikipedia so I gave you this.Sunjerbob (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added by Theopolisme at 02:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bubble Guppies

Why did you erase Bubble Guppies is canceled due to Boston Marathon bombings? --63.149.146.130 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The official reason is because there was no reliable source. The unofficial reason is because I can tell that you are hoaxing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That was a stupid unregistered user who actually asked why you reverted a disruptive edit and so called more attention to it. That address has now been blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cousin Skeeter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inglewood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

TMNT

There is no need to add an episode with "TBA" as the title, your just assuming an episode will air that day. That kind of research does not belong on Wikipedia. Koala15 (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did you removed the International Brodcasting per WP:MOS:TV

Why did you remove the International Broadcasting per WP:MOS:TV? Who are you from? the United Kingdom? 99.229.41.79 (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Read this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

He's asking you did you live in the UK NewFranco (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That information is not relevant to the user's understanding of the WP:MOS:TV guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Vous me rendre fou. Vous savez, quand une personne est folle.99.229.41.79 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you British

Did you lived in the UK because I think you don't have a template that informs you that you lived there. NewFranco (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about what did you live NewFranco (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Context what is how do you do? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand that you meant. I said "where did you live?" NewFranco (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you live in London

Understand what I'm saying, are you a British man 99.229.41.79 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying now. Thank you for your query. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What so controversial about International Brodcasting

Did you delete the International Broadcasting because of it is controversial? 99.229.41.79 (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. This is getting old. WP:MOS:TV#Broadcast Read it. Or don't. You're a freckle away from administrative intervention. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for my misunderstanding of what MOS:TV meant, the stupid things I did & calling you a crazy British man can you please don't block me. Would you accept my apology. I would never do these again 99.229.41.79 (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Huell Howser

I guess you didn't realize that {{FAG}} is a regular template! – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I did not, but I discovered it seconds after reverting it and was juuuuust about to revert my own edit with the summary: "That was an unfortunate mistake." Oy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

HiHi Puffy AmiYumi & Robotomy

Hi Cyphoidbomb, the shows Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi & Robotomy are really produced by Cartoon Network Studios. For "external", I meant that these two animated series seem to have been produced by a unique production company (for example Robotomy was only produced by World Leaders Entertainment), but if you look more closely at their closing credits in those two sources, you'll notice that Cartoon Network Studios officially held in them its production activities (but in secondary mode). Finally, in those two shows during their closing credits, are mentioned only the two executive producer for the studios (Brian A. Miller and Jennifer Pelphrey). Luigi1090 (talk)

Continuing this discussion at Talk:Cartoon Network Studios Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments about Blackcobs POV

Thanks for the reminder about civility!The editor is an Australian who has taken to editing NZ history almost totally from 2 books!!His comments and edits show that he has almost no understanding of Nz history yet he persist in editing. See his previous comment on the Scott book on Parihaka! Im not sure if he is a socialist , poorly educated or is pushing an agenda-perhaps all 3? His on going use of seriously compromised sources is a real problem for wiki. He needs to read the other 500 books on Nz history and change his mind set! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Animation production length

Darn you for proving me wrong! Haha. Your message actually helped. I was confused when kept telling me that multiple teams going at once. Obviously there are multiple people working on the show but now i know what they meant. But maybe it should be written differently since people like me might get confused. Xcleonardo (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)XcleonardoXcleonardo (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, cool, glad it helped! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your open mindedness, sense of collaboration and civility in discussing the role of the Reviewer on Sponge Bob Squarepants. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry!

Hey just wanted to apologize for that slight edit on the Even Stevens article. I hadn't realized that the tense had been standardized for shows no longer running. I recall seeing some articles in past tense but I'll have to correct them instead! Jamodalamo (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Aww, totally no sweat! I can see why it might be intuitive to say "was" if it's no longer in production. I once read a pages-long back-and-forth about the established policy. One editor made the change you made, another editor reverted it, citing MOS:TV (I think). The reverted user was adamant that consensus was wrong and that his perspective was the only way to go and it was excrutiating to read. On the other hand, there are reasonable Wikipedia citizens such as yourself! Thanks for the kind note! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm glad there are people as vigilant as yourself! I'm just getting into this whole Wikipedia thing (i.e. contributing, not just reading) and I'm trying to figure out the best way to be involved without stepping on too many toes. So far it seems very intimidating as there are pages and pages of criteria like the one you pointed out. Are you a part of any "task forces" or groups? What's the best way to engage editors with similar interests? Jamodalamo (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for donating your time here! No, I'm not part of any task forces or groups. Most of my time is spent covering a lot of territory, from fixing vandalism to trimming excessive detail from articles, to answering the occasional question at the WP:HELPDESK if I can, etc.

Wikipedia does has a number of "Wikiprojects" where you would definitely bump into editors with similar interests. For example, if you were interested in helping out with TV-related articles, you might look around Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. If that's not up your alley, there are plenty of other Wikiprojects to suit you. WikiProjects tend to have To Do lists, which could be a great way to get into the mix. The simplest way to get going, is to just look up stuff as you normally would, and when you see evil, fix it.  :) When you become more comfortable with general editing, I recommend activating Twinkle, which is an indispensable tool to automate and simplify some repetitive tasks, some of which would require finding the right page or policy, copying the appropriate template, pasting the template into a user's talk page, adding an explanation, etc. Twinkle allows you to easily welcome new users, warn vandals a variety of ways, request deletion of problematic articles, report vandals to WP:AIV, etc. You can activate it by going into Preferences > Gadgets. Anyhow, there's tons of stuff to learn and to do. If I can help in any way, don't be bashful to ask; I'm happy to help and I won't perceive you as a pest. There are LOTS of things you'll likely not learn until you mess up. I highly recommend becoming familiar with What Wikipedia is Not, because once you know what Wikipedia isn't, you'll know what it is.  :) And again, if you have any questions, I'm happy to help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I really appreciate having someone to talk to over such a valuable resource. I've always wondered how all the critters running on mouse wheels powered this whole thing haha. I'm definitely interested in making edits similar to the kinds that you do, but I have to ask, what's your general approach to finding work on the site? Do you check out the backlog or just try to make edits as you run into articles that require attention? Jamodalamo (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any trouble finding work. I basically made a few edits here and there, and by adding pages to my watchlist (click the star that appears next to View History), I started to notice (for example) that vandals were acting up. From there, I learned about the various vandalism templates and how to use them. Then, I probably learned how to check a user's edit history to see what other kind of stuff they were submitting. I'd check those, and if they appeared to be vandalism, I'd fix 'em and possibly refer the vandal to WP:AIV. Don't get me wrong, vandals are timesucks, but combating them has taught me a bunch of important Wikipedia concepts from assuming good faith to being patient and WP:CIVIL, because you may have to give a vandal a dozen warnings before Admins will issue a block.

Onto more upbeat subjects, you can always find work by looking at Recent changes. (Under the Wikipedia globe is an Interaction menu. Expand it and click Recent Changes.) Simply pick an edit and see if it was an improvement, grammatically, encyclopedically, etc. If you poke around there, you'll definitely find odd articles to edit, or you might check the user creation log to spot new users who may be spambots or whatever. Or you might be able to lend a hand at Wikipedia:Cleanup. I once rewrote an entire article about the Broadneck Peninsula in Maryland because of a request I found on the Cleanup page. Sometimes the most fun you will have on Wikipedia is to edit an article on a subject you know nothing about. That, I must absolutely encourage! I think also that lurking around the WP:HELPDESK will familiarize you with the kinds of common objections that come up. And if you want to surrender your life, simply reading the discussions at WP:ANI will give you the fast-track to understanding many of those opaque Wikipedia terms, guidelines, policies and abbreviations that are so daunting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Well I learned how to do this much so far. Thanks for all the tips! Keep up the good work! Jamodalamo (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scaredy Squirrel (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page YTV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up, robot! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at WikiDan61's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings From Turkey

Hello, I'm from the Turkish Wikipedia and for a few days we are trying to make a new team about Wikipedia:Cleanup. We are about to complete the team. But we have some questions about the cleanup process. What does the users in Wikipedia:Cleanup actually do? What should we understand from cleanup? I would be pleasured if you can give me a feedback. Nice day! Talha Samil Cakir --85.102.185.224 (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! I can't say that I know too much about it. I believe it is supposed to function as a group where you can submit problem articles for attention, and interested editors will take a look and make changes. However, it doesn't seem to get much traffic, either from people reporting problem articles, or from people who want to help fix the articles. I've only participated there a few times. That's pretty much all I know, sorry.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hadn't seen you in a while,just saying hey. Sunjerbob

About Nick Jr

What I posted on Nick Jr was correct, I can remember 2005, I saw those fruity indents, it's hard to remember it completeley because I was 5 years old back then, but I was right, I saw those indents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoshiNoKaabii2000 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, firstly, I don't understand what you mean by "fruity indents". Secondly, Wikipedia has a very clear policy governing original research, which I strongly encourage you to read. Simply because you remember something, or see something, or hear something, doesn't make that information worthy of inclusion. The information you submit has to be verifiable, and should be supported by reliable sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry... HoshiNoKaabii2000 —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Turkey protests

Yes I've updated the status of the protests but couldn't fix the problem it created. I will try to re-add them again tonight. Thanks in advance. Berkaysnklf (talk), 12 July, 2013, 23:36 (UTC)

Kamarupa of Bhaskar Varman

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Chaipau's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, Do you plan to go ahead for a RfC on this article? Chaipau (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Hi, thanks for touching base! I must admit I haven't thought much about this article in a while, but if you think an RfC is warranted, or if you would like to get the ball rolling on that, I'll participate. I took a look at the article this evening, and it still seems like a ponderous mess. My main problems with it at the time, were that the article had no objective, academic analysis beyond the scant public-domain published material that is heavily quoted here. I don't see that it's materially different now, except that there are more paragraph breaks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Disney Channel Original Studios

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Axem Titanium's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Declined AIV

Generally at AIV we decline any report that's as long and diff-filled as yours, and refer the reporters to AN/I. The AIV guidelines for reporters say to keep things short and sweet—if someone makes a report like yours that looks complicated, the experience has been that it is complicated, and often it's someone trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute (not implying that you are, of course). If you'd kept it to the first sentence or so, I might well have blocked by now. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ren and Stimpy

The information I provide was to inform users when the series was broadcast in UK, the series was give an early evening peak time slot. I will rewrite the piece again, with some refs to the newspapers etc. --Crazyseiko (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Son of the Bronx

Hi, This is a personal website but I suppose there could be an exception. Here's a prior discussion at RSN. I'll leave it up to your judgement.[1] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Keithbob: Thanks for the info. Anecdotally, and excluding occasional mentions in the trades, I typically only see two sites regularly cited for Nielsen ratings: Son of the Bronx and TV By the Numbers. I don't know what that's worth, but it's probably not very much. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Iyanya

I see that you edited Iyanya. I made a mistake. I meant to say his parents passed away. I know it sounded awkward. thanks for the correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace1608 (talk • contribs)

@Versace1608: No probs. I made a few more changes to that article. I tried to dial back some of the promotional language. The purpose of the article is not to glamorize the person, but to report on them. Take care. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hi. I've been researching for reviews on Nick Studio 10, and when you told me about "original research" (Which is Wikipedia's way of accusing others of speculation), Nickipedia, a Nickelodeon wiki, has the reasons why the comedy block was considered the worst. If you think I'm wrong, go here. Likely Ally (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Likely Ally: Hi, thank you for reaching out to me. I understand that you are relatively new here, so you might not understand all of the principles that keep Wikipedia going. Firstly, the issues are almost never about whether or not what you wrote is "right" or "wrong. One of the reasons why your edits raise red flags, is that very few, if any, of your contributions have provided sources to back up your claims. Now, I appreciate that you've written back and directed me to a Nickelodeon wiki, but none of the content at Wikia.com, or TV.com, or TVTropes.com, or UrbanDictionary, or the super-popular IMDb, or even Wikipedia itself, can be cited as a reliable source because the information they report are contributed by users, and there is no clear editorial oversight. That means that anybody with a specific hope or a personal belief or even an axe to grind, could contribute to these sites and manipulate how Wikipedia reports their favorite or hated subject matter. So the short answer is, if you write, "A lot of fans felt this episode sucked", that information will be removed, and even if you source that position, "A lot of fans on Wikia.com expressed their feelings that this episode sucked", that information will be removed because the source is not reliable. Wikipedia doesn't care that some angry, organized, vocal fans expressed concern about something, unless that information comes through a reliable, and independent reliable source. So, if the Washington Post found it noteworthy that a few dozen protesters came out to protest the latest Ridge Racer game over digital privacy concerns, that would be notable because it's not just trivial hatred, it was also reported by a major news source. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing, when you clarified your edit to this page where "mixed" means both positive and negative, you do realize that both "mixed to positive" and "mixed to negative" have been used all over the wiki. It doesn't bother me, so why does it bother you? Likely Ally (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Likely Ally: My edit summary was pretty self-explanatory: "Mixed" implies both positive and negative reception. Thus, "mixed to positive" or "mixed to negative" is redundant. You are attempting to argue that because "mixed to positive" and "mixed to negative" is in wide usage across the wiki, it should be acceptable any time you use it. I counter-argue that this is an "appeal to popularity" logical fallacy. Just because everybody writes "alot" instead of "a lot", doesn't mean "alot" is the correct word to use when you mean "a lot". If what you're trying to say is that the game received "generally negative" reviews, that might be a valid statement, provided you could back it up with enough reliable sources to support a "generally negative" review, which you also did not do. So that's why it bothers me and not you. You may or may not find this related discussion interesting as I started it shortly after reverting your contribution, although it was not specifically motivated by your edit(s). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Just because of a simple phrase doesn't mean you can flat out assume I'm arguing. I've seen other users place "mixed to positive" and "mixed to negative" all over the wiki, and I do not accept those two phrases every time. If you go to this [2], you'll see that one of the aforementioned phrases is seen there. Secondly, what does the word "a lot" have to do with the discussion? It's not mandatory to this because both "a lot", and "alot" mean the same thing. If this bothers you, you shouldn't get furious with the user who did this stuff. Just try to keep calm, and reason with him or her. We don't want to turn this little conflict into one big problem. Likely Ally (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Likely Ally: 1) "Argument" doesn't only mean "angry fight". An argument is a statement in favor of a position. "It's used all over the wiki" is a statement in favor (an argument) of continuing to use "mixed to positive". 2) I don't know why you're lecturing me about not getting "furious". 3) "Alot" was an example of something that is wrong no matter how many times it is misused. 4) I think I've done a fairly reasonable job explaining original research to you and attempting to explain why "mixed to negative" is meaningless. Since it doesn't appear I can do any more to help you, I'll be on my way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jason Cruise

Hello Cyphoidbomb. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jason Cruise, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's a close one, but I think the number of sources, whilst all thin, is enough for A7. I don't think there's enough for the GNG< but that needs to be decided at AFD. Thank you. GedUK  15:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A7

All secondary schools are considered notable at Wikipedia & A7 cannot be used for schools of any kind DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@DGG: Hey, I appreciate the edification, thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wind Music (record label), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xindian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hello there, I'm the editor of the Wind Music(Record Label) Page. In my opinion, I can't see any of the articles as promotional ones I just put some more facts on this page because it was too simplified in the previous versions Plesase give me some examples of what is "promotional" thank you very much! Really appreciate your time on all the wikipedia pages, it must be a hard task

Cheers, Victor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor20030101 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Victor20030101: Hi Victor, thank you for your response. I'm happy to provide you with some examples, but first, and because you are a relatively new editor, I should point out a few core Wikipedia expectations. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Flowery language about how great or original or innovative or creative something is, probably has no place on Wikipedia. There is a very comprehensive document detailing all the things that Wikipedia is not, here. Wikipedia is not Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, a telephone directory, the classified ads in a newspaper, etc. Articles cannot contain "original research", that is, editors cannot state as fact things they have personally observed, interpreted, experienced, felt, believed, etc. Claims that could be disputed, must be verifiable, specifically by the inclusion of reliable sources. Articles must be written in encyclopedic tone, and with proper grammar, etc. And also importantly, anybody who has a close relationship to the article subject, whether they are employees of the company or the founder, or a spouse, etc., needs to be aware that they are heavily discouraged from editing, as they have a significant conflict of interest, and likely cannot make objective contributions.

Now getting into the article, it is, by my estimation, saturated with promotional language, subjective phrases, jargon, and peacock phrases that only serve to promote the subject without imparting any real information. Here are a few problematic statements: "It was formed by a group of musicians passionate and concerned about the local Taiwanese music environment." Passion is subjective. Who says the musicians were passionate? Who says they were concerned with the environment? Where is the independent reliable source to establish this? Why does this sound like a press release? "Wind Music expects to take advantage of innovation and music vitality to lead the Taiwanese music market." Says who? Is "music vitality" a scientific term? "Successfully" is subjective. Who cares what Wind Music hopes, and who says that's what they hope? "Non-traditional approaches" is subjective, especially without any context for comparison. Was nobody setting up in-store demos before Wind Music? Can you source that? "Fine quality recordings" is subjective. Who decides that their recordings are fine? And "artistic exquisiteness" is about as non-neutral as you can get; it's not only press-release talk, it's also pretentious gibberish. "Extensive experience" is again, subjective, and is something you'd expect to read in a resume. If Wind Music is as important as you say, surely there are independent reliable sources to speak to their importance, without having to rely on unsourced claims that read like a resume. Those are only some of the problems that exist in the article lead. There are are far more examples in the article body. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

VP44444

Given how long VP44444 has been active and how many warnings they have been given, their refusal to follow Wikipedia guidelines is practically a kind of vandalism (or utter cluelessness). I think if they persist and continue to ignore other users, going to WP:ANI seems reasonable. Trivialist (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

changing name

how do i change the name of other articles like the way other people do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unorginal7 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Timur

I'm raising an SPI - meanwhile, you are over 3RR and these edits aren't an exception, so if you continue and Unka does also after his warning, you might both be blocked. Which would be a shame. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Hi Doug, I've not yet seen the 3RR rule wielded against someone active in good-faith anti-vandalism, (i.e. me) or for people maintaining the WP:STATUSQUO (also me), but then I still have a lot of stuff to see around Wikipedia. I suppose also that my edits could be construed as a content dispute instead of vandal quelling. I don't have an agenda at the page, since I don't even know anything about Timur. (Not sure exactly how he wound up on my Watchlist unless I was vandal-chasing.) Anyhow, your point is noted! I've no interest in winding up on the wrong side of the fence in the eyes of my peers. I appreciate your note, and I shall move along; scrubbing Timur from Watchlist! Thanks, and sorry for the headache. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have - even on very experienced editors. Don't worry about it, but I am always very careful and rarely even go past 3 reverts (and then only accidentally if I do). I realise it was all in good faith but it could be interpreted as a content dispute too easily. Leave Timur on your list, please, there aren't enough people watching it. This will be sorted I'm sure. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Okay, cool. The 3RR seems somewhat pointless when dealing with unambiguous vandalism, (ex: someone adding "Fart!" to an article) what, should we leave it? Isn't ClueBot exempt from 3RR? And even in a case of more ambiguous vandalism (Timur, pushing POV), it would seem counterproductive to punish the one restoring the sourced data. But I know that the community can sometimes have its inconsistencies. (any rule vs ignore all rules!)  :) Again, I appreciate your polite note. Take care! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but I was right about the sockpuppetry. Sock blocked for good, Unka10 for a week. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I did, good call! Why, that almost justifies my going over the 3RR!  :) Hopefully that'll be that with him. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry sidelines

I'm afraid I wouldn't know the exact secret recipe the CU's use to say that someone was a certain sock of somebody (in the latest TRCG volley on WOIO with Jacob21703 I really wasn't sure until they hit the seventh revert because they had good edits, and I had pretty much ceased dealing with the minor issue I had with the image, but the tech info in the CU panned out). Pretty much they read our incident reports and compare the information already in the report; for instance unless they're sadists, most usually stick to one static DSL/cable IP and a varying range of IP addresses on their cell provider or broadband stick, or have a ball when they go on vacation and get on the hotel/relative's wifi, or like TRCG has done, grabbed a store's connection and hit the usual targets. Basically I go on remembrance of past behavior and looking at my past reverts; something pops out and I know who it is. It's pretty much up to us to build a report so if CU has something they have to do they have all the help they need from us. Thanks for asking. Nate • (chatter) 07:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

2605:E000:1603:63:F893:521E:80E7:8232

Well, assume good faith, keep trying to reach them through their talk page, and hope they get the hint. :) Trivialist (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Omg! Insider may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in house fire|date=28 April 2012|work=''[[Geelong Advertiser]]''|accessdate=28 August 2013}}</ref>) were regularly featured in sweeps periods, along with other fringe stories such as [[true crime]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed - Thanks, BracketBot! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Voice Cast Vandal

Hello Cyphoidbomb. While I don't think that particular editor is the Voice Cast Vandal (as you also surmised), I'm glad you brought it up as I was unfamiliar with them. I have no particular affinity for voice acting or animated articles, they just come up under recent changes a lot. I'm guessing I have probably seen this person's edits before but obviously have no idea what I did about them. I will definitely keep this in mind whenever I see edits of this nature again. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for what I did? I promise I won't do it again Squidville1 (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI

I'll keep an eye on it, but you seem to have documented things pretty well. :)

You may want to assume a bit of good faith regarding grammar, misspellings, etc.; sometimes what seems like a troll or vandal may just be a young kid, or someone who's not the greatest communicator. Though in NewFranco's case it may be all of the above... Trivialist (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Trivialist: Good point re: AGF on spelling, etc. I appreciate your advice. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added John of Reading (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rack/Shack

What?!?! You think its the same guy?!?! What?!?!  ;-) Thanks for letting me know! Ckruschke (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

He (User:162.234.222.122) is back at it. I thought this guy was going to be blocked...? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Very_Silly_Songs!&action=history Ckruschke (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

@Ckruschke: Hey, I think the SPI folks might be backed up. I've seen some reports stuck in a holding pattern for weeks. AIV might be the way to go, at least to prevent (temporarily) further vandalism. Out of curiosity, what is the main objection to the "Rack, Shack & Benny" vs "Rack, Shack, and Benny" debate? I notice that the article says "and", not "&", but we don't necessarily need a wikilink to it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You won't believe this, but I just figured out I'm wrong. The ACTUAL name of the video is "Rack, Shack & Benny". The anon editor is still wrong, but what a freakin' idiot I am... Now the OCD part of me needs to go move the page name from "and" to "&". What a sad, sorry life I live... Ckruschke (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

It takes a big person to admit they were wrong. Now get over it. Everybody makes mistakes.  :) The IP created their own problems by engaging in a pattern of disruption before attempting to make constructive edits. For example here where they munge article formatting and indiscriminately change dates with no explanation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've filed a request for page protection at Very Silly Songs. By the way, do you use Twinkle? If not, you might consider it. It makes the automation of these requests and warnings super easy. I'm only asking because I noticed that some of your edits didn't have a tell-tale "(TW)". I didn't find out about Twinkle until I'd been doing these things manually for a long time and I felt like a chump. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Man I don't even know what "Twinkle" is... If there is a an easier way than me fat-fingering the changes, that would be great.Ckruschke (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

@Ckruschke: It will change your experience here for the better and free up a ton of time. Go here. In the browsing section, click the "Twinkle" checkbox. Now the next time you are on a new user's talk page, (for example) you pull down the TW menu in the upper-right of your screen, near the WP search box and "View history", and you can welcome them, warn them, send them to AIV, leave talkbacks, whatever. On articles, you can quickly nominate pages for speedy deletion, AfD, request page protection, tag articles for cleanup, and more. It really minimizes the copy-pasting of templates. For more info, see Wikipedia:Twinkle. Just be careful, because we are responsible for our Twinkle mistakes.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks bud - your the best! Ckruschke (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Lemme know how it works out for you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all your hard work. XXX8906 (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

TMNT

I don't know if you see this, but what's actually going on is someone keeps putting in false information for the episode guide of the 2012 TMNT, how is that person allowed to freely edit!? The second season does not premiere on September 28, 2013!! CLEARLY, if you go online anywhere and check the scheduling for the TMNT 2012 series, you'll see that there are only re-runs for the rest of September. I'm just doing my job and following what Turtlepedia says and its resources, which already has an article attached to it about rumors of it airing in October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.252.232 (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@98.110.252.232: A fair point. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've removed the "28" since that does not appear in the source, although September does, and for that reason it should remain, until of course, when September comes and goes and S2 doesn't premiere. A good rule of thumb is to cut what isn't sourced, rather than talking about rumors. Thanks again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Strange goings-on

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

...and likewise for Winnie-the-Pooh Gibberish. JamesBWatson (talk)

Iyanya

Hello Cyphoidbomb. I know you didn't mean no harm in your edits. I try my best to provide sources for my contributions to Wikipedia. Cubaze on the other hand edited Iyanya and Wizkid articles disruptively. He added his username to these articles as well as to the M.I article. I left him a message on his talk page. Is there a way you could notify an administrator to keep an eye on his contributions. I really think he's praticing vandalism and deserves to be blocked if he continues. versace1608 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@Versace1608: Hi Versace, you're making good progress on your Iyanya article. It's premature for administrative intervention, but if he continues to disrupt, let me know and I'll help out. (I'm not an admin, but I have lots of experience in these matters.) So far I agree that he may not be here to build an encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your easy-to-understand explanation and delightful-to-read template parameter proposal. Thanks for making it fun! ––Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 19:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

sorry

i did not mean to undo yours i was trying fix that wiki box that they mess up but your right that not relible souece, so i did removed it with the wiki box merge up with another one -Aozz101x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aozz101x (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@Aozz101x: A-ha. I missed that. Thanks for the note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are so helpful with tech issues. mcnkldzyn (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing Username

I submitted my change for my username(twice unfortunately) -- I inadvertently added a subject/headline. My apologies and thanks for taking care of this for me. ~scrltapdstr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrltspstr (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@Scrltspstr: I'm sure they'll figure it out; the clerk robot seems aware of both of your requests. Just sit back and relax for a spell. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gurcharan Singh Bhikhi (Sidki), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Punjabi and Bhikhi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh Yeah Cartoons

Why did you erase oh yeah cartoons began on January 2, 1998? --24.170.77.177 (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC) @24.170.77.177: For the same reason @Ashbeckjonathan: reverted one of your edits: no sources, and no explanation. Since it's difficult to gauge which edits are legitimate, especially when made from IP users with a history of warnings, any contested edits must be sourced. Surely as a constructive editor, you would agree that is reasonable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 15:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

sorry, thought I'd replied! Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Username

Still have not been notified about my Username request. Should I submit another one? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrltspstr (talk • contribs) 14:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Scrltspstr: Hi, looks like they have a backlog. I don't have any insight into the name change process other than what I've read, so if you wanted a more realistic time frame, you may wish to contact one of the (non-robotic) clerks who are lurking on that page. I definitely wouldn't create a new request, however, as that will likely only create more loose ends for the volunteers to fix. Hope it all works out! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Cyphoidbomb. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Much obliged, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jason Brett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SCTV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Iron_Projects

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Sketcher man's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iron_Projects condensed and toned adjusted

Hello, Cyphoidbomb. You have new messages at Sketcher man's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.