Jump to content

User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

My regrets

Actually, I must admit that I was not in my senses. The revert was weird. I must have been visiting a pub. Sorry. Faizan (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Admins Job

I wish to ask if you have been renominated again to become an admin? im surprised you never got it last time, and I would give you some backing. --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

About SpongeBob

Hello, one question; why do you keep deleting my posts about Epic Rap Battles of History being in SpongeBob 2015 movie? If you don't believe, Peter and Lloyd made cameo appearance in movie. Also they had written rap battle between Bubbles and seagulls. Matt Berny only gave a voice, while ERB crew did other job. They deserve at least a mention or feedback.

For further proof:

http://epicrapbattlesofhistory.wikia.com/wiki/SpongeBob_Movie_Rap_Battle

Everything's here. They wouldn't lie. Thanks in advanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.42.105 (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

80.80.42.105 I've explained my reversions each time you've submitted the content. "Unsourced" means just that. You need to support your contributions with references. See WP:REFB if you're not sure how to do that. Also Wikia is not a suitable reference for Wikipedia. See WP:RS. We need references that are not contributed by children, fanboys, and other random internet users. Instead, we need content published from reliable sources, specifically ones with clear editorial oversight. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Vinay Tiwari

Hello, my friend. You commented here about this. Just to let you know, socks are adding Vinay Tiwari to articles.

Links:

(I am not saying this editor is a sock.) That last link might help us dig up a few more.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up

I just went through the search hits. It seems there is a song writer and politician with that name. The sock calls himself a singer and song writer too, but a different one. He doesn't claim to be the one legitimately in articles. I see no other socking at this time.

On a lighter note, the sock claims to have written a song called "Proper Patola". We have an article on a (unrelated) song of the same name. Check out this unbelievably awesome album cover!!! This is why India is my favourite country. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not just your run-of-the-mill patola, tis a proper patola. Sikh and ye shall find? Hi Anna, thanks for the links. I do remember that the individual who first (in my experience) posted about Vinay Tiwari did disclose that they work for a social media company. Maybe that's what's going on here? Although, I gotta say, it's rare and honest for someone to disclose a COI like that, so I'm more inclined to assume good faith on their part. I'm not familiar with the other Vinay Tiwari stuff, but I'll keep my eyes open. Much thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Multiple Vinays and multiple editors. Cheers Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Surprising

Hey! Don't get me wrong. But, the way you were lecturing everyone about elaborating the positive as well as negative reviews in the film articles. I doidn't see any of them in a recent universally panned Hamari Adhuri Kahani. It just the film was panned so badly that it didnt received a single positive review. So, you and Krimuk90 are so much into this proving me wrong and all that. Why don't you add all those neagtive reviews there. It looks like you guys dont wqnt to affect the box office collections of that film. Krimuk90 , any answers here? I would have lived to see if this was the case when it was received well. Then, you guys would have praised the film in its reception like the new age Mother India.—Prashant 07:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Prashant, I'm not quite sure where the pissiness is coming from, but my talk page isn't a complaint department. If you're not seeing a suitable critical response section in that article, it's probably because you haven't added the balanced content yet. This is a volunteer project, after all—do it yourself. You're talking about a film I've never heard of and an article I've never edited at or even seen before, so whatever expectations you have that I should have done X or Y at that article exists entirely in your own mind. Also, you should chill with the absurd conspiracy theories, since they flirt with WP:NPA. I only edit Bollywood articles in my capacity as a wikignome. If there wasn't so much sewage being pumped into articles by overzealous fans, paid editing rings, sock operators, vandals, etc., I probably could have gone my entire life without ever touching a Bollywood film article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was not aware that you don't edit all Bollywood articles. But, thie user Krimuk90, who added majority of mixed reviews to DDD, demanded to remove positive as a whole from Mary Kom, does not add those universally panned reviews in article, which is about his favourite topic? Is that because he was trying to make it clear. He added those reviews in DDD just after release but, the same thinf he failed to do to his fav. Subjects article. Why? And, Why there is not a single Negative, mixed reviews in Tanu Weds Manu Returns and Piku? Because that user is manilulating so much. Do you have any answers? You look so much after things, which you mentioned above but, I didnt see you doing the same with Krimuk90's manipulation or fluff addition. You never ever asked him about NPOV. I have been telling this everywhere, but no one really cates about that. They think its because we dont get along, but the truth is the user is doing in front of everything and no one is really saying anything.—Prashant 15:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

About your edit here

Hi Cyphoidbomb, I wanted to ask you why you reverted my edit on this page. I've read WP:ELNO and I don't think adding the link to this wikia is doing something wrong. Also, the wiki is not open, I'm an admin and makes sure every edit is good and manage it quite efficiently, and it has a lot more information than wikipedia (as of now). Atharv Gautam (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Atharv Gautam Typically the wikis aren't embraced here, since they tend to be little more than fan sites. If you re-add it, I won't object, but be prepared for other editors to do so. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

NCIS: New Orleans

I was wondering if you could watch NCIS: New Orleans for the next 15 hours or so. There's persistent addition of unsourced content, I suspect from the same editor switching IPs and editing while logged in. I've tried fixing things but the article is a mess after these edits and I can't revert any more today. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy to! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Did you notice that the IP, among other things, added {{Main|List of NCIS: New Orleans cast members|List of NCIS: New Orleans characters}}? That's got me puzzled. Both of those articles are redirects, and have never been anything else. How did the IP know? I can understand one link, but not both. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Balochistan

You decide which one is reliable source:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

--Cosmic  Emperor  10:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What do I get if I choose correctly? (Please say new car, please say new car!) I'd probably stay away from opinion pieces and blogs, unless you are specifically citing someone's opinion. These look intuitively good: [1][2] as does this. I'm not familiar with this publication, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I saw your comment in that talk page. so___________Cosmic  Emperor  11:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see, you were helping me out. Thanks Cosmic! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wickliffe OHIO Page.

I Live in Wickliffe Oh, i kind of know what people call it. I have NEVER heard someone call it Whitekliffe. I also know that what i had made changes to with Telshe Yeshiva was correct, what you reverted it to is Incorrect. Jake1654 (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Jake1654 You can't remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced original research. What you know to be true cannot be included unless is it supported with reliable sources. So, if you can find sources to support the additions, great. If you want to challenge the unsourced town names, you can do that on the talk page, and if nobody replies with references after a reasonable amount of time, feel free to remove the problematic content. But adding new stuff that's unsourced isn't going to make the article any stronger. We need references. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I Cited/Referenced The Telshe Yeshiva Page.
Northeast Ohio is home to a very well known rabbinical college called the Telshe Yeshiva a renowned Orthodox institution for Talmud and Torah study.

Originally founded in the town of Telz in Lithuania in 1875, the yeshiva became a hub for rabbinic education. After the fall of Lithuania to the German military in World War II, many students and faculty members fled. The yeshiva was reestablished in Wickliffe, Oh.

  • Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[[3]]
Telshe Yeshiva, an internationally known Orthodox institution for Talmud and Torah study, was founded in Telsiai, Lithuania, in 1875. After the fall of Lithuania to the German military in World War II, many students and faculty members fled, and the yeshiva was re-established in Wickliffe in 1914
  • Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[[4]]
There is two cites/References for you. like i had before. Jake1654 (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The place for this discussion is on the article's talk page, not here. Also, no need for the talkback template. You use that when you want to let User A know of a discussion taking place on Talk Page B. Since you're on my talk page, I can see that there's a discussion here. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Momjob

it's feldman not friedman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momjob (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

jeff lowell and tony hernandez are executive producers of the jeff gaffigan show and the production companies i discovered on hulu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momjob (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Momjob You are a sockpuppet operator. None of your edits have been adequately referenced, your original account was indeffed, and you (the person behind the accounts) are not welcome to edit here any longer. Any edit you make, good or bad, will be reverted. The community doesn't have time to deal with weasels who can't be bothered to adhere to basic editing concepts, and your edits are indistinguishable from vandalism. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, so we can wait for good editors to make the constructive changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Jason Adelman - Draft

The page is ready to go live versus being a draft. Will you assist me in accomplishing this? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robot19332 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

dont tell me what to do

shut up  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EOB7902 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

sorry

im sorry but please leave me alone and dont message me again — Preceding unsigned comment added by EOB7902 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI times 2

Hello C. It looks like you are having to deal with two unrelated problems. The first one EOB7902 (talk · contribs) is making the same edits as those performed by this IP 2601:404:8000:8166:FD38:3633:756E:CFF1 (talk · contribs) earlier today. The second one Thomas.alrasheed (talk · contribs) well, all I can say is that I checked and every one of their edits changed or added info that was incorrect. You may have discovered this already but I thought I would let you know just in case. Thanks for your vigilance in dealing with these problem editors. MarnetteD|Talk 02:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Very good info, MarnetteD, much obliged for the note and I'm always happy to help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 02:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Jmichelson27

Jmichelson27 is back at it again removing stuff without reason and is now currently edit warring one of his unjustified removals of content on List of Victorious episodes. Would be nice to get a second opinion or watcher on this one. I noticed that you added an ANI at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#Jmichelson27, looks like he still refuses to work with other and just prefers to force changes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez I swear, only about 1/3 of anything I report at ANI ever gets any teeth. And yet when you go to AIV to report what is clearly disruption, you often (but not always) get admins who sloppily toss the chum bucket back into your crotch. Grf! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and obviously, I'm looking out now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
He makes enough good edits that he is somewhat getting a pass on the bad stuff. Would probably be an asset if he would communicate and just basically be willing to collaborate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Drushyam

Drushyam turns a good article today! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

1 July 2015

Hi,I noticed that you reverted my edit to Liza Soberano, She is not a singer though she sings as well as in her movie but that I thought it doesn't considered to put it in her occupation, if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message. Thank You! Apettyfer (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Apettyfer, thanks for the note. Using edit summaries helps other editors understand what changes you are making and why you are making them. In this case, you removed content but didn't explain it, and the content still exists in the lead sentence of the article, which makes it more confusing. If Soberano is not known for being a professional singer, then maybe that warrants removal, but explaining this beforehand would help. Also, please note that we have talk pages for this stuff too. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok will do, Thanks Apettyfer (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

List of television series considered the worst

Please check this out and tell me that you disagree w/ what's on here or believe that it isn't valid either: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Horrible/LiveActionTV BornonJune8 (talk) 10:54 p.m., 5 July 2015 (UTC)

BornonJune8 I do appreciate your note and I am sorry to be the bearer of the revert button. TVTropes, a site that relies entirely on user-generated content like IMDb, or Wikia, or TV.com or even Wikipedia itself, is not a reliable source per WP:RS, so none of what the angry contributors have deemed as horrible is useful for inclusion. We care about the input of learned professionals from periodicals and websites with clear editorial policies and presumed fact checking. Fan opinion (as I explained at Talk:List of television series considered the worst) is of almost no interest, unless it comes through a scientific analysis. Otherwise, when the media decides, "okay this fan movement is worth talking about" we might include fan opinion. But all that said, the article is about stuff deemed "the worst" so the content has to adequately support the claim of "the worst". The article is already problematic because it includes a lot of "well, this was considered kinda crappy" content, when it should be focused on "the worst". "Bad" and "the worst" are absolutely not the same thing. I hope this explanation helps, and please know that my reversion isn't personal. I recognize that you were trying to improve the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

IP-hop vandal

In regards to your AIV report about 100.7.50.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I wanted to let you know that I've created an edit filter (703) to catch anonymous users making edits with a summary exactly equal to the article title. I'm going to let it gather data for a few days before adding any additional actions to the filter like possibly warning or maybe even preventing the edit. This should help us detect if not prevent this type of disruptive editing. —Darkwind (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(tpw) Nice work Darkwind. Over the last year or so I have noticed that the edit summary "fixed typo" is now used to cover up all manner of things. I suspect that there is little to be done about this as there are editors who actually do fix typos. Thanks to you both for your work here at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 16:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: "Fixed typo" comes from the mobile interface. When someone edits using a mobile device, when they tap to save their changes, it prompts for an edit summary with a large box that is labeled "How did you improve the page?" and inside the box, in gray text, is "Example: Fixed typo, added content". It seems a great many vandals just type one of those two things into the box as a summary before saving, but it probably isn't something we can build a useful edit filter to catch. —Darkwind (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Darkwind. As an "old fogey" when it comes to the hi-tech available (my cell phone is so old it is a bit like the woodpecker working in stone to create photos on The Flintstones) I was unaware of this. I appreciate the time you took to fill me in. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Very cool, Darkwind, thanks for behind-the-scenes magic! This is a strange case since very similar edits are coming from what appears to be different geographical regions (Virginia, US vs Tennessee US) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Darkwind:, FYI, this guy's active again from 99.57.200.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
You can find a list of the filter hits here. I'm considering what, if anything, to actually have the filter *do* when someone makes this type of edit; they almost all appear to be unsourced additions/changes. —Darkwind (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we care?

You were the target of User:Sarahcarterslover's unnecessary drama with her (I presume) edit summaries: "Violated again by someone who just fights an edit war and wants to provoke. The thing is done. I overracted and the user just can't get along with the fact, her was wrong. Write again and we will have to talk with an admin. this is over." I was about to post another warning because honestly it's getting out of hand. Should we care or should we wait until the bomb explodes? Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 03:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for the note, Callmemirela! I'm soo relieved that I wasn't the only person to notice this user! I recently filed an ANI report about a completely unrelated IP editor who behaved very similarly. Exasperated edit summaries, removal of talk page comments with snippy responses in acknowledgment. It's interesting to me that I've twice run into this peculiar editing pattern recently. To answer your question, my plan is to stall them out, aka: wait until the bomb explodes. Given their history of combative and shouty edit summaries and unsourced edits, my guess is that their continued pattern will quickly result in them being blocked if they don't change anything. This of course is preventable, but since they view my advice as "violations", I don't see how I can constructively educate them before the bomb explodes. Which isn't to say that I won't try if I see something in need of admonishment, but I only see signs of one outcome thus far. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry. I was well aware of their edit summaries with: "HOW OFTEN DID WE TALK ABOUT THOSE "BRILLIANT" BULL$#i-?!? This is a judgement, and judgements are not to include in an Wiki article. This is the THIRD revert of this." I understand it was a WP:NPOV issue, but even I could have just said it a lot more neutral. I consequently gave them a warning: [5]. Regarding the IP, I agree there are similarities but I don't agree the possibility of the same person. Sarahcarterslover is violent and abrupt with her edit summaries. The IP is pretty tame if you ask me. One to their own. I agree we should wait until the bomb explodes. I'm just waiting for that edge. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 17:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Mirela, this sort of aggression is very odd to see fresh out of the thin blue sky. When this sort of thing comes up, my sockpuppet sense tingles. Aggression is usually in response to something, like a long-standing beef they might have with an editor or the community in general. I'm not saying this person is a sock, only that I would not be surprised to learn that they are. The other editor I pointed out has publicly acknowledged a behavioral disorder, which is a different explanation for similar behavior. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur. I wouldn't be surprised if it were them, but I am feeling at odds. We'll see how things go. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Dumb question

Is the green text (such as this) used when quoting an earlier part of a talk page? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: I tend to use it when I want to draw attention to any quote on a talk page, be it quoting a policy: "...multiple reliable sources from indpendent sources" or quoting individuals. Template:TQ Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ballers

Hi, can you please explain your edit here? I found it very disrespectful to blanket revert several edits that I made that improved the article–adding the full main cast to the infobox per the credits, organizing main and recurring cast, removing unnecessary pipe links, correcting "Steve" to "Stephen" per the credits, adding the official website, and adding episode 10 to the table. All you had to do was add the citaiton to the infobox, not delete every single edit I made. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drovethrughosts, I think that was a terrible mistake on my part and I beg your forgiveness. I'm not quite sure what happened. I only remember objecting to the unsourced "comedy-drama" and may have inadvertently rolled back to an earlier version instead of undoing that one change. Certainly wasn't intentional and wasn't meant as a commentary on your changes. Sorry m'man, and if you need me to do any legwork to fix it, please let me know and I will. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It's okay, I might have figured it was an error on your part. I've reinstated the edits that were lost. Thank you for your apology, it's appreciated. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Drovethrughosts I'm bummed! Thanks for fixing it and again, sorry. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ninjago Characters

Hey Cyphoidbomb, this is OptimusMagnus. The issue we keep having on the Ninjago page is that someone keeps putting up info on a character named Leaf, described as the Elemental Master of Grass. Thing is, there is no such character in the Ninjago series, whether in the cartoon or its associated media.OptimusMagnus (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

OptimusMagnus Ah, then that's a fantastic explanation! I've had to ask for page protection on the article because it's extraordinarily disruptive that neither side of this volley has been willing to explain anything. I don't know anything about the series, so I'm not in a great place to make the call. The IPs have to start explaining stuff, providing references, etc. Much obliged for the explanation. Please feel free to remove it (but please leave an explanation so that the passing admins will understand your rationale.) Thank you much! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits Regarding Diyar-e-Dil

Hello Cyphoidbomb, I am Sammy.joseph an editor who,edits Diyar-e-Dil regularly like you. Looking at you being a senoir, I wanted to ask you that is Imdb reliable wikipedia source? It is ofcourse placed as just one refrence but to improve Diyar-e-Dil , more than enough refrences of it are availible for episodes section. As you are a more experienced editor I wanted to ask is that should Imdb refrence be added? Please do reply on My talk page Sammy.joseph (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Displaytitle

The infobox itself contains something that makes the article title go italic (because movie titles are italic), so putting an extra displaytitle will cause an error message, except when you put the displaytitle after the infobox along with the "noerror" parameter. See more at Template:DISPLAYTITLE (though it's not actually a template). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jeraphine Gryphon, thanks for the info. After my change mucked up the page I went looking for the details in the template instructions, but I absolutely do appreciate the kind effort to edify me! Much obliged! Happy Saturday, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Why remove unknown?

I purposely put them there in case someone knows the name, I am watching the Arabic show and the Arabic names are different and the actors are also probably known but I dont know them, I've put that there in case somebody knows and puts them, no one will know now.--Mrox2 (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mrox2: When we have information, we should include it. When we don't have information, we should omit it. Content should be presented in a clear professional tone, and there's nothing professional about having question marks or other placeholders in prose lists. It seems to me that if the series is well known, and if these characters are noteworthy, that someone will come along and add it. We're not in any hurry here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Starstrukk

Can you keep an eye on the page? Thanks. 115.164.187.54 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs

Absent your replies to the conversation, I would have deleted the whole thing per WP:not a forum. Some person seems to have an issue with the show and some of the comments could be considered defamatory. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Geraldo Perez, I think this is one of those cases where I assumed too much good faith, thinking that while I might be getting trolled, maybe I can at least impart some info. If you want to nuke the conversation, I will not be offended in the least. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I ran out of good faith with this particular troll a fair time back. Just annoying now. I originally left the comments because of the good info you were adding there. The last troll effort was a bit too much. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Geraldo Perez It looks like several trolls to me. I'm of the opinion that the first conversation on the talk page needn't have been deleted, because it at least addresses the matter without much detail, while explaining where these people can look (WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE) to find out why we aren't going to include the content. But whatevs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm less sanguine about that. It looked like the petition was started to advance some agenda that the person wanted to be included in this show using the petition as an entry point. Look in the edit history of that page for other stuff I deleted related to this for some context. Don't like giving this person/persons a forum for his agenda. Feel free to restore anything I deleted that you think appropriately belongs on the the page. Again this is a bit of a judgment call and I might be acting more out of irritation than logic in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please pay attention

Your recent edit at What's with Andy? obscured a large, unexplained removal of content by an anonymous editor. Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sofia the First

Well I can't say for sure that Season 2 is 28 episode's long, based on the new episode that aired today having not changed the imagery on the opening yet Season 2 IS at least 27 episode's long. I saw on Disney Wiki (And before you say anything I KNOW it is not considered a reliable source, despite the fact that every bit of information for Sofia the First I have found on Disney Wiki has always turned out to be true.) But if your going to change it please don't change it back to 26 when it is now confirmed as of the newest episode that it is at least 27. And I'm sorry if I sound irritated by this it's just I've dealt with someone on here who kept removing confirmed information I was adding on Sofia's Episode page a few months ago and it was really annoying. I realize that isn't the case here, I can actually understand your problem here. But, please just change it to 27 if you feel it needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichigo341578926 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ichigo341578926 I don't know that I'm quite buying that this new episode is #27 in S2. We do know that Sofia was picked up for a fourth season, so why couldn't this new episode be the first ep of S3? Not that assuming is going to help us much. Our Zap2It, TVGuide, TV.MSN references aren't of much help here as they all seem to be lacking complete information lately. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb Well if we wait and see if they change the imagery in the openging in a couple of episodes we'll know for sure what season we're on. I'll leave what ever you want to do with the episodes up to you for now, and in a couple weeks we find out for sure what season things are from the opening I'll update it then. But for now I'll leave it be. Ichigo341578926 (talk 19:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

UBL in Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H.

The previous edit I did was because the UBL somebody left had listed the cast members twice. This should be fixed in some way. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the solution to that would be to remove the duplicate content, not blow apart the UBL. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hello my name is Byron molina and I am wikipedia Byronmolina87 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Son of Stimpy air date

Despite Sick Little Monkeys giving the air date as January 14th, it seems like the true air date is January 13th, which was recorded by contemporary episode guides (as opposed to after-the-fact episode guides found elsewhere). The date on Sick Little Monkeys is probably a typo. Hopefully the revised edition will fix this when it comes out. IsaacAA (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

so h

Hg Cjsorima10 (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as WordGirl (season 7), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://kids.pbskids.com:8080/wordgirl/parentsandteachers/pt_episodedesc_season7.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. 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 license allowed by Wikipedia, 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:WordGirl (season 7) 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! Stfg (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Further, you'll see that I've paraphrased an entry in WordGirl (season 8) that was copy-pasted from the source. It's essential you paraphrase like this when using material from copyright sources. --Stfg (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This is for your excellent, non-run-of-the-mill contributions to counter-vandalism, all without the rollback privilege or touching Huggle. Esquivalience t 20:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Esquivalience Thanks! I do have the rollback priv, BTW. Need it for AWB. I can't remember why I don't use Huggle. I think it had something to do with needing to install Java or .NET or something... Maybe that's changed. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

RfA nomination

Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hang in there. I think most of the editors looking in at this point are realizing that the whole copyvio thing was a lot of smoke with no fire. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Gurcharan Singh Bhiki

hello brother,i am writing the true information.Gurcharan singh bhikhi was my grandfather.Writing about daswand(1/10 of earning) is a truth, we family members and society know about him. what proof can i give you of his doing charity like helping some body by giving a small amount of money or giving amoung in open religious help.

moreover the photographs uploaded by me are the snaps of his book releasing function held at gurudwara Sarabha nagar ludhiana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpsbhikhi (talk • contribs)

Jpsbhikhi Hi there. Please see the article's talk page, where I have listed several problems with the article, including that the subject's notability has not yet been adequately established. You should be discussing this with me there. We need references in the article. Newspaper articles, biographical books, history books, etc. Significant coverage (not passing mentions) that are written about the subject by people who are not related to the subject. Though I understand your grandfather was a talented and well-known man, Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are high and there has to be a clear indication that his work was celebrated by people of the day and that it's taught in schools today, or whatever the case may be. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ugh...

I really wish there is some way to change this strict site with its strict rules. I mean really, The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) has been long dead and now there has to be a so-called "source" to confirm that...when I reverted it 3 times two months ago, User:Visokor caught a sand in his vag and started crying that I should have been ban permanently. He better saved those empty threats. Many other television cartoon articles need some good cleanup and improvement. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, JoesphBarbaro, first of all, thanks for your note. Second of all, your "sand in his vag" comment is inappropriate and that alone could result in admin sanctions. It's not only disrespectful to Visokor, but it's also disrespectful to women, and such language won't win you any friends here. Please avoid this sort of crap at all costs. We all need to behave like professional adults. That said, per Template:Infobox television, if a series hasn't aired any new episodes in 12 months, and if if there is no news of any new eps, we can change |last_aired=present in the infobox only to the literal date the series "last aired". This is to prevent series from being listed as "present" in perpetuity. So if I were you, I'd wait patiently until August 5th, (two weeks!) then make the change with a clear and polite edit summary, "Per Template:Infobox television, if a series hasn't aired a new episode in 12 months we can change the last_aired parameter to the literal date the series "last aired". If that gets reverted, then open a polite discussion on the talk page. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There are some other television cartoon articles that I think also need some improvement. For some odd reason, alot of information was cut out from the My Life as a Teenage Robot article. I read up elsewhere that it was due to lack of sources. That article really needs to be expanded. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yay and good luck!

I'm glad to see that you're finally running for adminship again, it looks like you'll get it this time! Good luck! :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

AmaryllisGardener Thanks! However, it doesn't look so good right now. Accidental copyright violation in the creation of WordGirl (season 7). I moved content from earlier season articles and that content had copyright violations in them. If you are an admin hopeful (and I see that you are) be very, very careful, and learn from my pathetic mistakes. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't give up. You're still at 77.4% support. Hopefully some of the people who opposed without bothering to get the full facts will change their minds. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
AussieLegend I greatly appreciate your strong support. However I think after this I'm going to see about usurping Meteor as my new username. Holy shit. One stupid mistake is all it takes. What is frustrating, is that there are still copyright violations in those articles... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't withdraw just yet - opposing for this minor mistake is like opposing for something as severe as outing, which I hope the bureaucrats see. Esquivalience t 16:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Several years ago I stood for preselection as the local candidate for my political party for the upcoming federal election. Some people opposed my candidacy simply because I hadn't had any small business experience. At that time, I was the only person who had nominated so there could have been no candidate but these people thought that having a candidate with no experience in one area was worse than having no candidate at all. Fortunately commonsense prevailed, even though they let the idiots vote. Let's hope the same thing happens here. I don't see that what you did was a mistake. I've been right through the edit histories and I think you did a great job with the crap that was available and I probably would have done it the same way. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the spirited uplift, both. I'm not withdrawing. I'd rather fail spectacularly than give up. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Just ride it out. I hope this doesn't drive you off the wiki, we need good vandal fighters like you around. Ж (Cncmaster) T/C/AVA/RfA-C 19:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I view you as a "test case" – I firmly believe that if they won't give people like you and Cyberpower the bit, the standards have become far too high. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The standards are OK, but the real problem is that voters are substituting perfection (i.e. the lack of mistakes) for actual research. Anyone who has even done even a few minutes of research would vote neutral at worst. The truth is, the only editor that hasn't made a mistake before is the editor that has not made a single edit. With such low editor counts nowadays, do we want to bite RfA candidates like potato chips? Esquivalience t 22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that's my point, Esquivalience – if the standard for many RfA voters is "perfection", then no one will ever pass an RfA. The number of volunteer's with NeilN's record are miniscule. If the voters at RfA are expecting that level of contribution, they might as well close RfA down right now, 'cos I doubt there are half-a-dozen more "NeilN's" floating around. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget another problem: popular candidates are much more likely to succeed. NeilN, in many ways, is like Cyphoidbomb: hundreds of AIV reports, slightly less protection requests (fun fact: Cyphoidbomb has more AIV and protection requests than NeilN), many help desk responses, about the same amount of manual edits, little content, and, of course, mistakes. The only difference is that the former is sung, the latter is unsung. I am not trying to insult anyone here nor am I saying that NeilN is imcompetent and is a bad admin (quite the opposite actually), but NeilN passed with flying colors largely due to this advantage. Esquivalience t 22:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
For anyone interested, I made the leap inspired by this discussion that I was pinged in. It seemed like things had changed, although maybe in my foolishness optimism, I didn't check to see if that was actually the case. Soooo, we'll see. The copyvio thing was unfortunate. I've since recreated the article (Gaak! Article creation!) minus the copyvios and with appropriate attribution. I've also removed copyvios and close paraphrasing from S8 and S6 (S6 needs more attention). One thing that is not clear to me, and is a little irritating, is that I took a lot of heat for moving the copyvio from the S5 article. The S7 article was deleted because of the copyvio. What about S5? The copyvio content still exists in the edit history. I don't want the article deleted, but should that content be revdeled? And if so, why haven't any of the critics done that? (Rhetorical, I know...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd mention recreating the article at your RfA (exactly where to mention it, I'm not sure...), but it's definitely relevant, and may sway a few votes. I would not bring up the S5 article thing – as of right now, I don't consider that "your job"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Good point about the latter. Clearly I'm pissy about it. (Although I have already mentioned it...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Here are some examples of my awareness of copyright concerns culled from my last 1000 edits:
But of course I'm not allowed to rebut, because that would reasonably make thick-skinned admins switch their votes to oppose. Presenting facts is combative. Facepalm Facepalm Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
And being obnoxious. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Yes. As is speaking on behalf of a colleague in what is purported to be a community project. What I've learned so far: If someone insults you by equating you to an infant, calling that behavior rude is an insult to that person. As an admin candidate, you are expected to be thick skinned and accept all criticism, because that's a quality an admin needs. However, once you're an admin, if someone criticizes your erroneous assumption during an RfA, feel free to get bent out of shape and swap your vote. If you address too many people's concerns, you will be penalized. If you don't address any of their concerns, you will be penalized. What else? Oh yeah, remember that it's an unpaid job that will only increase your workload. I should collect these and write up an essay or something. However, I'm far too busying dreaming up a really fantastic Featured article to build from scratch all by myself so that everybody will like me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You could always get WordGirl (season 5) to FL status. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you point me to the criteria? Also, if you comment at my RfA again, I'm going to break your editing knuckles. ;P I do genuinely appreciate the support, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
And then I typed in WP:FL and found the criteria like a big boy who doesn't wear diapers. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I'll ever bother commenting at RfA again, unless it's to oppose certain editors there who have clearly demonstrated themselves to be eminently unworthy of ever being an admin. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I have come across some of your anti-vandalism work, and have appreciated it. This whole RfA system seems broken; everyone has areas where they can improve. I do wish you well through this toxic process. Scr★pIronIV 20:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you ScrapIronIV! I think the difference this second time around is that I know that the process is flawed. I'm getting a lot of experience shaking my head in disbelief. May all those who oppose get to handle all the sockpuppet misery out there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As a side note, as you are around, could you take a look at this?[6] I could use a second opinion here, and I am not asking you to act - just to tell me what you think. The chart is supported by leaks from a hacker site (initially, it even had a disclaimer that the source was not reliable, which has since been removed) and I do not see it as WP:RS. It seems like something that belongs on Wikileaks, but not here. Thanks in advance! Scr★pIronIV 20:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that RfA is chronically broken: thousands of discussions on RfA, a few million comments, where the hell are the reforms? The oppose section is obscene; even defending a snarky comment is enough reason for an oppose! Esquivalience t 20:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I don't mind being the case that proves the system is broken. :) ScrapIronIV, the content you are referring to seems a little shady to me. If it's not from an official source, it's of dubious worth in an encyclopedia. WP:RS and all. I'd like to look at it closer later, but my instinct is that it shouldn't be entertained. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to take your time; I don't want to touch the article again for a while. I have removed that chart a couple of times already per WP:RS, and the hackers are patting each other on the back for reverting me. Last thing I need is an edit war over it, and I have learned the hard way there are some points of view that can't be reasoned with. What are the RfA rules, anyway? What percentage is a pass/fail? it's clearly not a simple majority. Scr★pIronIV 20:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@ScrapIronIV: >80% is usually a pass, <70% is usually a fail. Between 70-80%, or sometimes give or take a few, a "cratchat" (bureaucrat discussion) starts to evaluate the arguments, primarily focusing on the oppose/neutral votes. If they are OK, it's usually a fail; if they are poor, it is usually a success. Esquivalience t 20:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The Obnoxious and Combative Copyright Defender Barnstar
To you Cyphoidbomb, I award the The Obnoxious and Combative Copyright Defender Barnstar for duty above and beyond the call of...oh wait, this is a volunteer project. Also, don't think I didn't notice you stalking me!!! Above you say "I'm far too busying[sic] dreaming up a really fantastic Featured article to build from scratch all by myself", when just a week earlier I said "I was going to create an article from absolute nothing to featured status with just one substantive edit." Not only are you a habitual copyright violator, you're also a plagiarist! ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Damn! You've figured my whole shit out, Hammersoft! Thanks for pointing out that awful typo, too. Yeah, the real trick, as you've pointed out, is creating the entirety of the article yourself, as anything that requires help would probably be frowned upon. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm onto you man! Don't slip up again! Be careful with the snark. Someone might oppose you for highlighting the absurd. If you can't create an article from scratch, you are obviously completely unqualified to block a vandal who adds "penis penis penis penis penis" to an article because... well, you know, with your lack of experience in writing articles you wouldn't be able to tell if that was real content or not. Seriously, be careful with the snark. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

RfA: Question 11

Cyphoidbomb, when get the chance, you might want to answer Question 11 of your RfA (or, at least, state that you don't intend to answer it). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks IJBall! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

I am totally agree with you not involved in edit war but i don't understand why i am not add this table in List of Bollywood films of 2015. This kind of table is also used in 2015 in films and many other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slmnkh (talk • contribs)

Hi Slmnkh, the discussion at Talk:List of Bollywood films of 2015 should have all the information you are seeking. There are several concerns and the best place to read them is there. Hope that helps, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Veggietales The Penniless Princess

Hi. I noticed you undid someones edit in the The Penniless Princess section on List of VeggieTales Episodes. They added that the theme is about true worth. You said theme is subjective. Actually, on the front cover of the dvd it says "A Lesson in Truth Worth". See it's page on the Official Veggistales shop. Seeing as how that is the official theme stated on the front cover, it's fine to add it to the article. Every Veggietales DVD has the Lesson stated on the cover, so we could add the theme/lesson to every episode section. Aiorocks101 (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aiorocks101, your point is understood and I thank you for the note. The theme wasn't adequately sourced and no real-world context was given so that anyone reading the article (like myself) would know this. I think it's probably wise to get consensus before adding this, because themes should conceivably be clearly explained in the summary if it's appropriate. If "true worth" is the lesson the vegetables have to learn, then it would seem that some form of "Character A doubts himself, but then X happens, which results in Y. A begins to doubt himself more until character B says H, at which point A realizes his true worth and blah, blah blah" would be more appropriate than tacking on random statements with no context. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Bonga663

Bonga663 had recently come back from an expired block in which time they submitted one declined unblock request. After reviewing their subsequent personal attacks, I have blocked them indefinitely. Always good to look at an editors contributions to reveal the extend of their disruption. Mkdwtalk 04:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Mkdw Danke. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Maelbros sock?

I was looking at a protection request, trying to determine if socking was going on and eventually came across the SPI for Maelbros. What do you think of this editor? --NeilN talk to me 00:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey NeilN, definitely a contender. He mixes up behavior a bunch, I think. I see unexplained infobox changes, unsourced new article of questionable veracity, more infobox/company/production changes (unsourced) [7][8][9]. Some of these are so obscure or poorly source-able that it's hard to spot-check. I would say that it's definitely consistent with behaviors that other socks IDd as Maelbros have engaged in. Is he from France? (I know, you don't know). I would revert most of his stuff on general principle of being significant and unsourced changes. Does this guy have a book of facts about obscure subjects? Can we see it? Also this seems jive. "Rupert Bear: Adventures in Nowhere" doesn't yield any Google results. "Rupert and Tiger Lily's Returns"? No hits. "Rupert gets the Bossy Blame". No hits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Semied some of the new targets. --NeilN talk to me 16:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy

Oh boy. Should we have to watch this trainwreck? Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 12:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Callmemirela, I think that hoping for the best and being as polite as we can be should anything else come up is the right way to deal with it. The user has already received a few warnings. If they keep submitting unsourced content and combative edit summaries, they will likely wind up blocked. Maybe the next time they submit something unsourced we should check the official NBC reference just in case. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) FWIW, I really have to wonder if that editor's username is a violation – you know what, I'm never over at WP:UAA, but I think I'm going to take this one over there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Mopping

Congratulations! I would have voted yes if I had seen the RfA. Good luck with the new responsibilities! Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Rugrats episodes

This looks like another screwed up list. The most recent IP states in an edit summary "Several websites, including TV Guide, list these this way", but the changes made don't match TV Guide. For example, TV Guide lists:

  • Incredible Shrinking Babies Season 7, Episode 16 July 13, 2001
  • Cavebabies Season 7, Episode 20 March 1, 2000
  • Discovering America Season 7, Episode 21 March 29, 2000[10]

How can s07e16 air in 2001 and s07e20 & 21 air over 12 months earlier? Season 7 now extends from 1999-2001, season 8 extends from 2000-02 and season 9 extends from 2001-04. That's a a set of totally illogical overlaps. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

AussieLegend I only spot-checked one air date many hours ago. I'll take a look tomorrow-ish. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing that TV Guide may be using production codes as episode numbers, rather than going by air dates, at least for this series. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

And a wet mop.

Welcome to WP:100. That's quite an accomplishment. You're RfA is looking like it will pass, so an early congratulations on that front too.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for the club welcome! Secondly, I'm not confident the RfA will pass, so I will politely wait to celebrate. The last time I feel like there was a flurry of opposes at the very end. Such a strange experience, this. I will tell you one thing, however, regardless of the outcome, I'm going to become more interested in helping to change the system. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
So you were saying? While my RfA tanked in the last 24 hours, you made it back out of the discretionary zone after having plummeted to 72%. The biggest reason is that you have opposers moving to support. I believe that makes a big statement.  :-)—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Can I tell you I told you so now? :D Congrats, my friend.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I found a copyvio on Eocene that survived for 15 months despite being edited and surely seen by many editors including admins. I was planning to bring it up at the RFA if it seemed to be needed, but since youre at 80% with only a few hours to go I think there wont be any problem. By the way I usually only vote on RFAs that are on the borderline or where I otherwise think my opinion is needed, so that's why I havent voted in your RFA. I havent checked your recent editing history but assume I would still support. —Soap— 17:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Soap, thanks for your note! I'm not frazzled by the copyvio thing. It's such a non-issue that if people want to be hung up on that, that says more about them than me. The editors who saw through that drama are my heroes. Also, on the RfA talk page, I provided 14 examples from my last 1000 edits where clearly I understand copyvio issues. Anyhow, no sense poking the bears with this new Eocene revelation. Unrelated, I saw your user page and I hope you feel better. Thanks for your support even if you do not vote. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's the customary T-shirt; a blue one for not withdrawing. You've got out of RfA relatively unscathed despite the unquenchable fire and brimstone. Good luck, and may you prove the phrases "thin-skinned admin", "snarky", and "clearly not ready" wrong. Esquivalience t 20:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
God, I think every year that crappy t-shirt gets shittier. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Admin!

May you long wield the mop in the absence of controversy. Congratulations! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You have successfully crossed the finish line and officially become an administrator. I am glad you stuck it out and proved that an obstacle such as the one that arose in your RfA can be overcome. Congratulations and good luck. Donner60 (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I just want to join the chorus and say congrats and well done. MarnetteD|Talk 05:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and don't forget your choices: {{Administrator topicon}} and {{Administrator topicon|tan}}... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Tremendously grateful to all of you who voted in support, also grateful for the opposers who had valid objections although I will conveniently apply my subjective filter of "valid" to the responses, as would be my luxury. AussieLegend and Swarm were my most vociferous supporters. I am touched by that. Aussie almost *cost me* my candidacy, not because he did anything wrong, but because the "rules" of the RfA are so abnormal and contrary to any other Wikipedia venue any of us have ever attended, from AIV to SPI to ANI... Please keep me an honest admin, all. I would still like to participate in other RfAs because I think the system is flawed; I don't think it should be that hard to become an admin. One thing I didn't like about the RfA process is how people treat it like a job interview: you're supposed to show up in a cardigan and maybe instead of a tie you wear a sassy cravat to make a great youthful impression, you put on your halo and not give anybody any lip, endure criticism when much of it is a misrepresentation of one event that everybody is latching onto via groupthink. You already have the thankless, unpaid job, and your title is "regular experienced overworked Wikipedia editor". Requiring editors to phony up to "land the gig" is asinine. A request for adminship should be considered a request for additional tools, just like when you get your AWB wings. Tools, not a gold medal for FA genius work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well put. This was certainly a rough RfA, for sure, but you still had nearly twice as many supporters as I did. Very cool that I got to cast the 100th !vote. Anyway, if you ever need help or anything don't hesitate to ask. Congrats, friend! — MusikAnimal talk 07:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: This comment is stupid, trivial, and just downright silly, but I wanted to prove I was the 100th at the time I casted the vote [11]. Looks like someone else restored their withdrawn support !vote and put me at 101 by the time the RfA was closed. Ah, now I can rest easy :) — MusikAnimal talk 20:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been to a few job interviews so I think the RfA was more like a political election with people casting their vote based on what they think is the situation, rather than basing their decision as to suitability on the facts. RfA also seems to abandon WP:CONSENSUS. In any other discussion, straight supports or opposes without any rationales are generally given no weight, while at RfA this is apparently counted as valid. And God forbid that there is any discussion that presents actual facts to counter an obviously flawed oppose vote. On a lighter note, nobody even commented on the "only has 45,000 edits under his belt" comment in my support vote. Anyway, you're an admin now so I expect you to be editing 24 hours a day. You'll have to with all the admin work and GA content creation that you have to do in addition to what you already do. ;) Congratulations. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
In lieu of wearing a cravat, one could wear an ascot... North America1000 12:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yaaaaaayyy. That couldn't have been pleasant. Glad you decided to hang in there even when the opposes were piling up early on. Very satisfied that you and your supporters were able to bring the copyvio pile-on to a complete halt. Common sense prevailed on that front, and that's certainly not a given at RfA. I have seen plenty of RfAs that tanked when the hive mind (no pun intended) latched onto minor non-issues and no one made an effort to speak against the unfairness of it. On a broader note, BLP and COPYVIO are basically the most serious policies here. Due to the legal considerations, there's not much flexibility in their application like there is with other rules here. This unfortunately has an unintended creeping effect in which people will commonly overreact and overexaggerate the seriousness of situations relating to these policies. This happens especially often in disputes when people will claim they're enforcing these serious policies against violations, when in reality they're misrepresenting or overexaggerating the policy in order to make them seem more "right". This may or may not be in good faith but it's something I encounter a lot in my administrative capacity. Don't be afraid to investigate these claims objectively and dismiss them if they're not justified. The policies are very specific but oftentimes the claims of violations are frivolous. Anyway, enough of that rant. Congratulations Cyphoid, really. We're lucky to have you on the team. Well done! Swarm we ♥ our hive 09:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, and welcome aboard! Drop by if you need anything. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I also want to say congratulations. I felt very strongly that you got stuck in one of the more unfair pile-ons I've seen at RfA. I'm gratified that the community overall came to a sensible conclusion, and I hope that you were not put off by the experience. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you feel that way Tryptofish because I do as well, and I hope that we can all maybe work toward changing that. I sort of wish that someone had posed the copyvio matter as a Question for the Candidate at the top of the page. "An editor has pointed out that in the creation of an article, you committed a copyright violation. Do you have an explanation for this? What are your thoughts on copyright policies?" Instead, because candidates are discouraged from responding very much, I felt the only place to reply was on the talk page. Don't know that more than a few people saw that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on past history, I think that any attempt to reform the RfA process will merely be an unproductive time sink (as indeed almost all past attempts to reform it have been). The bottom line is that the critics' arguments did not carry the day, and cooler heads prevailed. Today is a new day. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the revert on David Ogden Stiers. That'll teach me to look at the Talk page before such edits! -Etoile ✩ (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Etoile Sorry for the unsettling shock of a revert and thanks for the open mind. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Kindly Update Bahubali The Beginning Box Office Collections

Bahubali Grossed 435 Crores In 18 Days Here is the Link of an Authentic Source http://m.ibtimes.co.in/baahubali-bahubali-3rd-monday-box-office-collection-prabhas-film-grosses-435-crore-18-days-640810 Santhoshlee1 (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Santhoshlee1  Done The most appropriate place for these requests is on the article's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about date ranges on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi&oldid=673679922

I wanted to ask you about your comment about date ranges on the following revision. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi&oldid=673679922

I have taken the starting dates and ending dates from each of the wiki pages where the beginning date and ending date is listed with citations. Examples Meray_Qatil_Meray_Dildar or Maat_(TV_series). I could give more examples, but you get the idea. Do I need to list the starting and ending dates on the following page as well List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi.

If you prefer, I would link to Facebook pages' as well. For example, here is one with a series' finale list in this post. https://www.facebook.com/ZeeZindagiTV/photos/a.228970673964964.1073741828.225241597671205/278598122335552/?type=3&permPage=1. But this is a Facebook page link, so I am not sure if I should do it.

Any suggestions would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoflogan (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Quite a neutral editor you are, who always believe in gaining consensus, and in WP's policies and guidelines. And if does not work out, you take the talk page to resolve instead of warring. Kudos to ya! Frankie talk 00:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about WP:COI and asking for a recommendation

A representative from Merlin Entertainments has been pulling out sourced data from an article about one of their attractions on Mall museums because it "interferes with their Google search results" - I have sent WP:COI notifications and warnings, and it's at edit war stage, so I need to drop out. It's not vandalism, per se, so I am stuck with the 3RR restriction. They have been to my talk page, and I have responded. I am not certain where to go at this point. Suggestions? Scr★pIronIV 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Scraps, I think a good habit to get into the moment you feel resistance about something like this, is to open a perfunctory discussion on the talk page just to log your objection in a clear way so that it's there from the beginning. I have literally started discussions titled "Perfunctory discussion". Something to the effect of "In [this edit] I reverted changes made by IP NN.NN.NN.NN on the basis that it is an indiscriminate list that contravenes XYZ." When dealing with IPs it's a good idea to drop talkbacks on their page as well, since IPs don't have watchlists. As annoying as it is to get sidetracked on the talk page, it is the best way to make sure your shit smells prettier when you start tip-toeing near edit-war country. It would suck if you got caught up in that. Just a thought! Anyhow, I've got the article/talk page watchlisted and I am looking forward to the IP's clear reply. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, they have started a real conversation on my talk page, and included an apology with a promise to log in and collaborate. Having another voice in the discussion really seemed to make a difference! Thank you so much for your input - and I will work on more "talk page" and less "template" :-) Scr★pIronIV 18:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Awesome! That's great. Thanks for having an open mind. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thulasi86

Thanks for the feedback, was not aware that plot should be between 400 - 700 words.

Thulasi86 (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive_7&oldid=1142949778"