User talk:Themandb/Archives/2014/June

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Hello Themandb, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Themandb, good luck, and have fun. – Seattle (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have been here before. I forgot my old user information. Themandb (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

AFD nomination

You added an "Articles for deletion" tag to Hello Internet, but you failed to complete the nomination process. Please do so, so that we may know your rationale for suggesting this article be deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Referencing

Please note that Wikipedia requires that all sources used in articles must be reliable. While you claim to be using imdb Pro,[1] the sources that you have provided in Girl Meets World are not imdb Pro. They are from the "standard" imdb, which is not considered to be a reliable source. Wikis are not reliable sources other, so your use of disneychannel.wikia.com is also inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have always seen editors use IMDb as a source for the past four years and never saw those edits reverted. Whats with that? And what right do you have to say IMDb is unreliable when the public always considers Wikipedia unreliable? Themandb (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That the edits weren't reverted doesn't justify inclusion of unreliable sources in another article. Geraldo Perez directed you to Wikipedia:RS/IMDB in one of his edit summaries.[2] That says, "IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged." Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/FAQ specifically lists imdb as being unreliable for television related content. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not being inconsistent with IMDb as Wikipedia articles are also considered unreliable as a reference as the content is user generated - See WP:USERG and note that all wikis are mentioned and that includes Wikipedia. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm reverting your latest change,[3] because we don't favour one source over another. If reliable sources contradict each other, we have to reflect what all of the reliable sources say, which requires discussion. This is necessary for compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Please go to the article's talk page and start a discussion there about the changes. As your edits have been reverted, you need to do this in accordance with our BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You need to gain consensus for your changes to be incorporated into the article and note that, while the discussion is underway, the status quo prevails. That means you should not restore your edits to the article. Doing so is edit warring which is unnaceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you not see that MSN is more unreliable than just regular IMDb? Themandb (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't speak of an edit war. Geraldo Perez is the reason this whole thing is happening in the first place. And IMDb is way more reliable than MSN, so why is everyone trying to block me in any way to make an edit? I was told IMDb was unreliable, but IMDbPro is acceptable. So I use IMDbPro. The edit is still reverted because a paid service should be compared with one of the most unreliable sources in the world? It looks like you guys just don't want me to improve the article. Therefore, you guys are acting like the US Government. Themandb (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia regards MSN to be a reliable source, whether you agree with it or not. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, iTunes is giving the pilot episode away for free right now as part of a promotional deal with Disney. The official title for the first episode, and this is authoritative as it is directly from Disney, is "Girl Meets World". This means IMDb is blatantly wrong in this case. IMDbpro is good for pro-only content. Just because you log into the pro portal to access all of IMDb doesn't mean the non-pro stuff is any more reliable than using the direct non-logged in access. Your last edit not only overwrote MSN.com but also Futon critic, a programming guide, with conflicting IMDb content. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You know what, I'll just stay out of Girl Meets World and watch the content be re-entered later by an editor who has held an account for a while. I bet you guys won't touch that content. Do you know what I (and other people) have been noticing lately? It's that Wikipedia has been really biased against new accounts and IP editors. I have seen people complaining about it on many talk pages and no one is doing anything about it. This is mirroring the Democratic Party, you do know that? On my old account that I lost my information to, I had been on Wikipedia for a long time, and no one bothered me much. Now, I recently registered the new account, and I get bullied around. You guys think your know-it-alls, where your only job is to pick on new accounts. I am tired of this, and I want it to end. No need to reply. I don't want you two in particular replying on this page. Themandb (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of Dog with a Blog episodes. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. AussieLegend (✉) 08:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

See what I said? New account bullying. Look at the Girl Meets World episode count for the first season. There's no source that says there are going to be 21 episodes. Please stop stalking me and reverting every last edit I make.

The reference for episode 1 of Girl Meets World shows the total season episode count, so it's not the same thing at all. As for stalking, I've been editing List of Dog with a Blog episodes since September 2012,[4] 21 months before you started editing so clearly you must be stalking me. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been editing episodes for all Disney Channel Shows since the release of A.N.T. Farm, either on my defunct account or through an IP. I am not a new editor, despise what you think. Also, you are stalking me, I clearly don't want you around. Themandb (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no evidence of this "defunct" account, I'm afraid that your claim lacks credibility, especially since there is no verifiable pattern of editing at "all Disney Channel Shows". --AussieLegend (✉) 11:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

By "defunct" you mean "blocked", and I've blocked this account for block evasion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Who's Rj?

That's not me. My defunct account is RichardBrown. I don't know who Rj is and I don't know why I was blocked. Themandb (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Themandb/Archives/2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That's not me. My defunct account is RichardBrown. I don't know who Rj is and I don't know why I was blocked.

Decline reason:

Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. —DoRD (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And how do you confirm that? I live in a skyscraper in Panama, if your trying to use CheckUser.