User talk:Bonusballs

Welcome!

Hello, Bonusballs, 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! HMR 17:59, 04 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't 'spam' the Hemorrhoid page. My site contains information and treatments for hemorrhoid; thus, it deserves a spot on Wikipedia's 'external links'. My website attempts to inform and help people who have hemorrhoids; however, it is a labor of love and I am not paid to run it, so I try to recoup my expenses however I can. I do not appreciate the message, however.

Ibcteam (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why that IP editor is obessed with adding "CNN might have a channel at some time maybe sorta in the future" but good job keeping it off the page. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding Now 73 and its availability on Napster, the point is that that fact is not notable unless it is sourced in third-party reliable sources. I'm sure I can verify the same thing that you found out, but again it is not really notable for inclusion. The Now! series is, of course, notable. It has been around for 25+ years and each now volume sells extremely well. Additional facts, such as chart positions, total units sold, for these volumes can usually be properly sourced and are suitable for inclusion in the article when they are. You may or may not agree, but that is just my reasoning. --Wolfer68 (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my previous point. If not being available on Napster is notable, there should be some reliable third-party source to back it up. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Now73-napster-copy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Now73-napster-playlist.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

Can you not undo the redirection if you feel the article warrents staying please state the reasons for it i nlist of hd channels in the uk, currently the list is the same as list of channel in sky digital and list of hd channel in the uk, it provides nothing extra and it not notable enough to be on it own, it either redirects to one of the ones above but since it focusing on hd channels it best for the hd channels in uk article. all the article is doign is collecting the same information on the baove article so is dublicate and apart fromt eh stuff your removed which was directly advertising it still is not required. instead of putting it for deletion where all information that mgith be useful gets deleted redirection is the best options i rather nto put it up for AFD. i am not acting out of my believes or so on i am jsut following guidleines for wikipedia which state dublicate or near dublicates article should be merged or deleted--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've enjoyed your often helpful contributions to this article in the past and I think it would be very useful if you could offer your opinion on the re-naming 'thing'. Thanks for helping to contribute positively to the encyclopedia with your efforts! cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry about that. I just had it fixed in my mind that 576i was 16:9 and 480i was 4:3

-Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdyson (talk • contribs) 12:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe to add a balanced section regarding the Powerline/Comtrend adaptors its important to mention the facts..which are:

1) The adaptors dont meet EMC regulations

2) The adaptors DO cause interference.

We have to mention facts only I agree, but adding a comment from OfCOM: Ofcom concludes that "there does not at present appear to be significant public harm arising from this situation.",is just an opinion not a fact (and in any case whats "harm" - Non-Compliance is surely Non-Compliance??); the reason being that there are many people who have only recently been able to identify the interference and I your edit removes my EMC test results and links to the audio which would enable identification.

Glowplug1 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, read your message. Yes more views would be good, though I dont think that mere mortals like ourselves can compete with people such as EurIng Keith Armstrong, C.Eng, MIET, MIEEE.

I think it would be wrong to allow opinions of people without comparable experience and qualifications to allow/disallow The COMTREND interference issues.

Regards, Steve.

Glowplug1 (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have now removed any mention of interference cause by BT Vision Powerline adaptors...despite more developments: http://www.rsgb.org.uk/plt/docs/ofcom_letter.pdf

I find your editing un-professional and suspect and I intend to bring this matter to the attention of wiki

Glowplug1 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to substitute templates e.g. {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} rather than {{uw-vandalism3}}. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Giving users loads of vandalism warnings at once (As you did here) isn't really helpful. It's far more constructive to give one warning after reverting their vandalism (In some cases you can give an only warning when vandalism is extream). Once they have vandalised after their final (level 4) or only warning, you need to report them at WP:AIV! Thanks! Cannonbolt2 (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that your not a member of WikiProject British TV channels, perhaps you would consider joining? - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep out of editing Nick Jr. (UK & Ireland) or Nick Jr. please you or you'll have to be blocked.

You're an evil liar and I'm going to kill you! (I won't really, I just want to teach you a lesson)

I have switched this to just a redirect to the main network. As it is only a simulcast network there is no need for a separate article devoted to a duplicative HD feed, and I have reformed the writing as such. Nate • (chatter) 04:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your efforts in countering vandalism. I have noted that you have been using the {{uw-vandal'''X'''}} template in your warnings. Please note that you should be using the template {{subst:uw-vandal'''X'''}} for technical reasons that I personally do not understand (there is likely a good explanation somewhere... and it should be noted that not all templates need to be subst'ed!) Again thanks for the work you do, and if you could use the correct template wording from now on that would be even better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I turned that range block back on for another month. Please let me know (or post at AIV) if he hops into one of the other ranges associated with that vandal. Kuru (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that ref, it enabled me to locate him and find out how his name is actually spelled. I've now added it correctly and tidied up the mess which was made by the ip. Oh, and he was 81. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a number of reverts, claiming vandalism, in this and this. I don't see how you the edits you reverted constituted vandalism; they look like unsourced additions, sure, but why would that be vandalism? Wikipedia:Vandalism states there must be "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," and I don't see any deliberate attempt. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message - basically I believe they're vandalism because they're part of a systematic and sustained group of edits by one or two editors which have basically been spraying incorrect additions across a range of children's TV articles. (Activity which has been going on for years, in fact.) If you look at the edits made by the IP users in question you'll see that they forms part of a pattern - focusing on the same few articles, adding the same (obscure) TV shows, etc. It's very definitely vandalism as none of the edits are sourced or factual. The editors making these changes don't respond to discussion, don't engage on talk pages, and keep going even after multiple blocks and warnings. If there were any legitimacy in the information being added that would be one thing, but this isn't even misguided, it's systematic and deliberate. Bonusballs (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Looking at the history, I figured there was something like that going on; I also asked User:Rohnjones, who had blocked them earlier, and I reckon they'll say the same thing. Some people don't learn, do they. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a shame - I can only hope that one day they'll use that enthusiasm and knowledge of Wiki for better, more useful purposes. Bonusballs (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im a reviewer and somebody tried to edit the article Scottie McClue and I am just asking, what made you put that COI template on the page.Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 01:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer on my talkpage, Thanks. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 01:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you bonusballs for explaining the situation from your point of view. I have no direct connection with any of the subjects which appear to make you so anxious but do see them as important media figures and I find it suspicious when one party because of their administrator status and early warning system who has clearly 'vandalised' this piece in the past and attempted to 'do the subjects down' on a number of occasions with comments like 'is this Mr Lamont trying to edit his piece' show a sense of paranoia against at least one of the the subjects. I do not know whether this person reads Wikipedia or is aware that this piece exists but it is a clear example of JPS setting himself up as the gatekeeper when he has clearly been guilty of direct 'vandalism' in the past

Please note that this page is regularly edited by an IP address connected to UTV. The JPStalk to me 09:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

but is also using his administrative powers to block editing as he has done many times in the past well outwith the spirit of Wikipedia. I am sure you can well see why people's suspicions are aroused with regard to JPS's motives and his connections. If it makes JPS feel better then why not go for full protection and prevent any other parties from editing the articles at any time in the future leaving them stuck in time. Then at least JPS can sport a self-congratulatory tone that he is 'powerful' on Wiki and can stop anyone editing with a click of his 'autoprotect' button. It may make a mockery of Wikipedia but am sure it will not make one jot or scintilla of difference to any of the subjects which he so preciously guards from having any other input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havengore (talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==Template:Children's channels in UK & Ireland==

Thanks for correcting my point there, i was on auto-pilot. Forgot that the Beeb had axed it's slots on the network Wilbur2012(talk) 16:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilbur2012 (talk • contribs) [reply]

hey no problem revertign ym edits as yoru correct the chanenls are but the person who posted original posted a transponder that doesnt exist and when i scanned the channels didnt exist either, but the transponder you have posted is correct just looks bad on me you reverting ym edit :P--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found that the edit summary you gave when reverting me was insufficient. Could you please explain it clearer so I can understand? Because actually the EPG does say that Nicktoons Replay ends at 6:55PM. EpicWikipedian (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked on Sky in the UK and it says 18.58, like it always has done. I can't see anywhere that says 18.55 so I assumed that you had made a mistake. If you have a better source than the channel itself, by all means provide a link - that's what Wikipedia is all about. :) Bonusballs (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited TVNZ 6, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortysomething (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) 10:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who keeps adding the stuff like iCarly month and Victorious month?3 They're fake and someone keeps adding stuff like that :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.76.62 (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a random vandal - they add a lot of similar fake stuff to Disney articles too. Bonusballs (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism about 86.44.207.99. It is, as you no doubt realise, very difficult to do much about this sort of long-term IP-hopping vandalism. I have blocked the IP you reported, but of course that won't achieve much. I have placed a couple of range blocks on the ranges of IP addresses used, but unfortunately there is a significant amount of perfectly legitimate editing from those ranges, so I have blocked them only for a few hours, which won't do much. I have also semi-protected Template:Children's channels in UK & Ireland and KidsCo, which were the two pages I found that pass both the tests (1) subject to persistent and frequent vandalism over a long period, and (2) vandalism still taking place recently. That should help a little, but, as you know, there are many other pages affected. Please feel welcome to contact me on my talk page about this, and I will do what I can, though I'm afraid that won't be much. In particular, if you know of any other pages that pass the two tests I have mentioned, and I will consider protecting them. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	In recognition and appreciation of your hard work in the endless pursuit of an IP hopping vandal. Well done.  ⊃°HotCrocodile...... + 23:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted this edit as WP:Vandalism. It's not at all clear that that fits the definition of vandalism and your use of rollback appears to be inappropriate. Is there something here I'm not seeing? Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If you have a look at the history of that article you'll see that it has been plagued for the last few years by the constant addition of completely made-up or extinct television channels, these edits all having been made by the same editor (or via the same IP address pool). I and other editors have been reverting this as vandalism on sight as it's clearly the work of a lone, determined individual. That article was semi-protected as a result of such abuse, which solved the problem for a while, but the repetition of the same editors from a new user account User:Dylan fagan signalled a further push by this prolific wiki vandal. Fundamentally it's the repeated addition of errors into articles, despite all previous requests to stop, warnings, and blocks. There's a fuller explanation and more examples at the page User:GMTV Chart Show which details the ongoing sockpuppeting and vandalism, which has been occuring for several years now. Bonusballs (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but they don't seem like fictional additions. This seems like addition of real shows. Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That edit is an excellent example. You'll see that they've added "TBA 2012 (New)" as a launch date, and then added a random list of real shows as "Programmes from 2012". Basically this is complete fiction. This channel closed well over a decade ago - it's not coming back, and the only person who thinks it is is this editor. Those "2012" programmes may be real but they have no relation to a channel that closed down in 1998 - most of them had not even been made when the channel was closed. No sources support these persistent and long-running errors which they continue to spray across any page even slightly related to the topic. Bonusballs (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case for SPI and page protection. I'll take care of the latter. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, this seems to be quite endemic. I hadn't realised it was that bad. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite the horror show, isn't it.. Bonusballs (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I added one someone told me about earlier from where similar stuff has been happening, but you might want to check it out in case they're not the same. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just caught another one. If you haven't done so already, it might be worth filing a request for a sockpuppet investigation as his activity is becoming quite disruptive now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. One of the IP address ranges has already been blocked tempoarily but this is another pool from the same ISP (Eircom in Dublin). Bonusballs (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited The Children's Channel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Family Channel (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) 10:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know the guy that you warned (86.44.197.68)? Well, he decided to disrupt Tai Chi Chasers. He is also continuing to edit other pages (such as Toon City). You can see them on his contributions page. Just a heads-up. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We use the US website because these shows are produced in the USA. Its standard for tv shows, if the show is produced in New Zeland we give the NZ site as the official site, this is not the place to fight against systemic bias, which clearly does exist on wikipedia. Inconsistencies of thiss ort are extremely annoying and do not help the reader. If you want to change what we do on all tv series on wikipedia reverting me is not the way to do it. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice - it seems inconsistent that in one article you remove a link [[1]] on the basis that it is a US-only website for a channel which just happens to broadcast the show, yet in the majority of other cases you add US-only links in preference to the official worldwide sites many of which feature in the shows own end credits - surely it can't get more official than that. Still, your call, it obviously matters to you more. Best of luck. Bonusballs (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe easy on this one for awhile; I was successful on getting a year semi-protect on this one. Just too much going on to keep up the whack-a-mole on the IPs for too much longer. Nate • (chatter) 03:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! Bonusballs (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in. This fellow just doesn't seem to want to get the message. And, while the particular edits in question are mostly neutral, given any sort of room on his leash he'd begin to muck things up again. His bad editing is an insidious thing! Thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see that the edit you reverted was, in fact, wrong. JohnInDC (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange pattern of editing - seems like an odd focus on US-centric articles given that the editor is based in Ireland. Bonusballs (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and when he adds a country of origin to a series it's almost always Canada. Go figure! JohnInDC (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say very nice quick catch with User_talk:90.216.171.243! Keep up the good work! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottie McClue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Rose Radio (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) 10:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax, and there is an article about them. I've deleted the 'Productions' article as not improving on the original. Peridon (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Citrusbowler. I wanted to let you know that I had altered a warning template you had placed to say "only" warning. In the future if you are giving a level 4 warning, affix an -im so it says "only" (Example:{{subst:uw-vandalism4im|''PageName''}}). Thanks! Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 20:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really necessary. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ‎Jockzain. Thank you for reverting vandalism at those articles. I think the IP user you are dealing with has already been blocked for 2 year with slightly different IP 89.100.93.190 and also has this one 89.100.131.20 doing same vandalism and not listening to anyone. Regrads--Jockzain (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no problem! I'm pretty sure they're the same editor that has been vandalising for some years over at 79.97.153.17 as well. Bonusballs (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

89.100.130.154 again vandalising the articles, with giving excuse that his uncle was incharge of these events so he knows everything about them.--Jockzain (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the Sock warning template here was very helpful. Thanks for doing that! :) Filed an AIV report for the disruptions at Scaredy Squirrel. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This particular editor has been at it for years and sadly still shows no sign of stopping - you can almost guarantee that any edit to a children's article from 86.41.x, 86.42.x or 86.44.x is more nonsense from this guy. Bonusballs (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just saw this. I will never understand why they expend the effort on something as fruitless as vandalizing Wikipedia. It's like walking into an open home, ransacking it, and then walking away pleased at yourself for being so cunning. I'm of the opinion that all articles related to children's TV and film should be semi-protected indefinitely, or, any IP edits must be accompanied by a $5 security deposit. Proceeds will be distributed to users who combat vandalism. Here's another one for your collection from 86.44.x: 86.44.207.194. There've only been a few edits from this IP thus far. I know you've considered rangeblocks, has that done anything? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another: 86.44.199.87. Do you want me to do anything specific when I encounter these, rather than dumping them in your lap? Should I tag them with {{ipsock|GMTV Chart Show|blocked=no}} (I can't block people) or report 'em somewhere? Happy to help out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not an admin either so I can't block people either - you're right that some of the admins did try a range block last year but I think they were reluctant to keep it up as it was basically covering almost all users of one ISP in a certain city. It stops the vandalism stone dead but unfortunately prevents a larger number of legitimate edits from normal people too. Tagging any that you see is certainly always helpful - you can say "blocked=yes" because that isn't actually blocking anything, it's just flagging that the main sockpuppet account (GMTV Chart Show) is blocked, which it is. I may re-report this case to see if the admins have any other ideas, as the problem clearly isn't going away any time soon. Bonusballs (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool, I'll be happy to help out! If I see any of these, I'll flag 'em. It is somewhat ridiculous that nothing can be done about this. You'd think Wikipedia is big enough to have a sit-down with the ISP or something. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Channel 4 programming 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:

• * ''[[Murun Buchstansangur]]'' (
• |title=C4 accused of falsifying data in documentary on climate change - Independent Online Edition > Media |accessdate=2007-05-20 | work=The Independent | location=London | first=Steve | last=Connor |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 50.151.44.115 vandalized Toonzai. I had to revert it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bonusballs. Thanks for your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism about the IP address 82.24.188.86 I see that the problem has been going on for a year, and I can't imagine why nobody has done anything about it before. I have blocked the IP address for a week, but if you see any more of the same when the week is up, please drop a note on my talk page, and I will consider blocking for significantly longer. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Blocked for a year. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit removes some talk page posts of yours, which is something I would not normally do, but under the circumstances I thought it better to just remove the whole section. If you disagree, then please revert my edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for undoing the changes on List of programs broadcast by Qubo. I think I know who was responsible for vandalizing "List of programs broadcast by Qubo" section by putting PBS shows on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbears22 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert. I was kindof on automatic :P Benboy00 (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've removed a number of talk page comments by another user, without explanation. Those I have reviewed have not been vandalism, personal attacks, or off-topic (although the intent of the requests are certainly not clear). According to WP:TPO, those are largely the reasons for the outright removal of another user's comment, and the page goes on to say that if someone objects, you should stop. I am objecting, so please stop. If you insist on continuing, a detailed edit summary is what I insist upon in return.--~TPW 15:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TPW. Thanks for your comment. You may not be aware of the situation with these specific articles and this specific editor, a long-running sockpuppet (of some 7 years standing) who repeatedly makes disruptive edits (insertion of errors, hoaxes, and bogus claims) into articles on a repeated basis. The talk page archives of Talk:The Children's Channel and Talk:Pop (UK TV channel) in particular are littered with these repeated nonsense requests. Since the edits are from a user whose primary sock account has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia, it is not at all clear what benefit their momentarily unfiltered 'contributions' add to the encyclopaedia, or why you seem to 'insist' that their disruptive editing should continue to be tolerated or even recognised, in contrast to the policies set out at WP:RBI and WP:DENY. Nevertheless, you asked for an explanation - and this is why I reverted what I did. Obviously, if you disagree, you are certainly most welcome to lend a hand in addressing this user's non-stop and repeated vandalism. The more help, the better. Bonusballs (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BB, I found another sock IP, 86.41.43.247. I've tagged the IP on the talk page. Do you typically report these each time at SPI, or are you just collecting them for a bulk report? I notice that the last report was in July 2013. In the interim, I'll report it to AIV. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! To be honest I'm never really quite sure what to do about these. I usually tag the talk pages and revert their edits, reporting to AIV if they persist on the same IP address - but usually they keep changing addresses faster than that anyway. The whole range was blocked for a while after the last SPI report, that really did seem to stop the problem, but of course affects legitimate users in that range as well. Have reported this one to AIV again as they've just unleashed a fresh wave of errors across a number of articles… Just no fun at all.. Bonusballs (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I reported the IP who kept adding the TV show thing to Lego City and you suspect is a sockpuppet, to the WP:AIV, so hopefully they will be blocked on the basis of their false edits. Maybe the socking issue will then be investigated. Anyway, thanks, DarkToonLink 09:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, can you please capitalize when you file a report? The report names are case sensitive. --Rschen7754 21:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the brand new owner of Wikipedia! Now it is time for a guessing game! What is my favourite number? IS it 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7? If you get it right, you live, if you don't, I shall terminate your account or you will have to give me your password! 2013 Owner (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nick Jr. (UK and Ireland) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. TigerShark (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. I wouldn't have called it "edit warring". JamesBWatson (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat taken aback that reverting obvious and repeated vandalism of an article (addition of wilfully incorrect content) is considered to be edit warring. Keeping that kind of vandalism at bay is hard enough as it is without this kind of treatment. Bonusballs (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel that this is an example of you reverting vandalism [2]? If so, can you please explain why you believe it was obvious vandalism? TigerShark (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do. That section of the article is a list of "current programmes" broadcast on that television channel. The material inserted by the IP editor is not a television show, is not shown on this channel, is dated in the future (2014, with no source provided to substantiate any suggestion that it may ever BE a "current" show in the future), and is one of a number of similar and long-running pattern of edits made to this page either from that specific IP address or that IP range over the last few months, where all previous warnings and blocks have been ignored. It is unequivocally the exact type of pernicious long-term vandalism that subtly corrodes the integrity of Wikipedia articles and which AIV and SPI seem unable to address. Bonusballs (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If adding it as a current show is obvious vandalism, why is it listed as a show on the Nick Jr. website [3]? TigerShark (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if it is not a current show on the channel, why is it listed at 8am (and 8:30am) tomorrow morning? [4] TigerShark (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is about "Nick Jr (UK & Ireland)" and the website you reference is for the Nick Jr channel in the United States of America. They are not the same country, and not the same thing. Bonusballs (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so have you discussed that with the other user? Or have you just issued them with vandalism warnings and reverted their edits ? Is it possible that the other user has made a genuine mistake here, and nobody has properly discussed it with them? Is it possible that those shows could actually be coming to the Uk channel in 2014? TigerShark (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point has been repeatedly made in the reversions that the programmes being added are 'not shown in this country' or are in error. The messages on the user's talk page explicitly say "if you believe that this information is correct, please discuss on the talk page". They have not done so. Can I reiterate that that IP, and that IP range, is repeatedly adding all manner of show names to this list - for example [[5]] mentioning 'Sarah & Duck', a show screened on the BBC's CBeebies channel, a direct rival to Nick Jr UK - so no possibility WHATSOEVER that the show will EVER be screened on the channel as the IP editor claims. How about this edit [[6]] adding "Nick Jr Jungle", another seemingly fictitious show. Perhaps this edit [[7]] adding "Zou", a programme which in the UK is screened on the Disney Junior channel, again another direct rival to Nick Jr UK, and again no possibility whatsoever that the information being added is correct. Bonusballs (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that Nick Jnr would never show a CBeebies show, but (in the US) they show Mike the Knight (which is also shown on CBeebies). Are you absolutely sure you are right about this, and all the other shows? TigerShark (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely sure. CBeebies in the UK does not allow commercial rivals in the same country to show the same programmes as it does. Like most British TV channels its programmes are market-exclusive. And can I reiterate that what is shown on Nick Jr in the US is not the issue - the UK channel is different. A different network in a different country. It shows similar programmes, but not exactly the same ones. You can't even give the IP editor the credit for being confused about the countries because 'Sarah & Duck' and 'Zou' are not shown on Nick Jr in the US either, they're shown on PBS and Disney Junior. Why, exactly, would an IP address from a New York ISP be repeatedly inserting errors into three Wikipedia articles about British television channels, and absolutely nothing else? They won't respond to discussion or warnings and persist despite being blocked. What other conclusion is there? Bonusballs (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you are absolutely sure? That they won't be shown and that the user is even adding fictitious shows like Nick Jr Jungle? TigerShark (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely sure. I would not be reverting their edits, warning them or reporting them to AIV if I were in any doubt whatsoever. Bonusballs (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you are absolutely sure that there is not a show called Nick Jr Jungle, and that the other user was committing vandalism when they added it, why is it listed as a show on the (UK) website? [8] TigerShark (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a list of games. There's definitely no TV show broadcast under that name. Bonusballs (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is listed under "Shows" on the UK website. Even if we assume that you are right and their website is wrong, is it clearly vandalism for somebody to add it to the Wikipedia article (given that it is listed on the Nick Jr website as a show)? TigerShark (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nothing else they have added to any article has been remotely correct, and that their remaining edits only damaged articles by removing formatting and joining unrelated lists together into one unsorted mess? No, it appears to be a part of a consistent pattern of abusive behaviour which resumes immediately after a block for the same activity. If they were misjudged then they'd have explained themselves or joined the discussion by now. If they've got lucky by adding something that appears plausible to editors outside the country to which the article relates, then good for them, but if you consider that user's behaviour as a whole - as I have - I don't think you can come to any conclusion other than WP:DUCK. Bonusballs (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding incorrect information is not vandalism, intentionally adding incorrect information is. To be honest, I have not seen anything here which convinces me that the this is a simple case of vandalism and of you reverting vandalism. All of the shows either exist (or are, at least, listed as shows on the Nick Jnr websites), even though you were sure that "Peter Rabbit" and "Nick Jnr Jungle" were made up by the IP. As for the other shows, it all seems to hinge on your belief that you know which shows could possibly be upcoming on Nick Jnr, and also that any possible mistake regarding country differences is clear vandalism. Even if you are right and the other person is wrong, then that doesn't automatically make the other person a vandal. I have looked at your talk page interactions, and edit summary interactions and I can see little, if any, discussion (including any discussion on possible confusion between shows in different countries, as you claimed). The vast majority of what I can see is reverts and you issuing vandalism warnings. I protected the two articles to give everyone a breather. I wonder if you might consider taking the time to open a discussion with the IP, and see if any of this can be sorted between you. TigerShark (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that WP:DUCK applies, but sure, why not, let's see if they'll sit down for tea and cakes and discuss the matter. I freely admit that I am sceptical, and I think your optimism is misplaced, frankly, but by all means let's give it a go. Bonusballs (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks also for taking the time to go through it with me today. Good luck with the discussion! :) TigerShark (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BB, just keeping you apprised that sock operator Brightify aka FanforClarl has been very active of late. I believe he is probably better referenced as FanforClarl, as that account has an SPI archive, and Brightify does not. Here's one of the recent sock reports, which was eventually linked back to FanforClarl. This also revealed HoshiNoKaabi2000 and Orginal (sic) to be socks of FanforClarl, along with WangsDaringsFun, and others. I also believe one of the sock accounts related to user "Orginal" took credit for being GMTV Chart Show, thought I don't think that was ever proven by CheckUser. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's interesting - thanks. I don't think Unorginal/Hoshi is actually GMTV Chart Show, the styles and patterns of vandalism are completely different. I suspect they just said that to try to fox any investigations. Bonusballs (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have checked the contributions of Hoshi an Clarl, and I don't think they are the same people, Hoshi is more into editing kids TV articles, and Clarl is more into Kids Bop. TDFan2006 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TDFan2006:, the link between Hoshi and Clarl was confirmed here (see very bottom). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry about the witch. I've got a sweet bomb shelter stocked with gourmet food, flame throwers and holy water. You're welcome to use it for as long as you need. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you, thanks very much. :) Bonusballs (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, well, it pains me to say it, because I never wanted to give this kid extra negative attention, but I am proposing a community ban of sockjobber FanforClarl. Details at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Ban proposal - FanforClarl. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be removing redirects. The article is a whole bunch of unsourced garbage. Pure fancruft. Also as stated at WP:NOTTVGUIDE lists of programs are discouraged. If you want to start the article again, add reliable sources. If you keep on reverting my edits, I will report you for edit warring. I looked at you history, and you have been having an edit war with the same article. Nick Jr. is already covered on the Nickelodeon UK page. Finealt (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone and accusations are inappropriate and unbecoming. As I have already mentioned, you are making wholesale deletions across whole swathes of content on Wikipedia with no discussion or consensus. Your assumptions (including the amazing one that there is no such channel as Nickelodeon Switzerland, because viewers in that country obviously just watch the French and German channels) are not just misguided, they are hopelessly and hilariously wrong. Such assumptions are not a sound basis for the edits which you are making. As I said elsewhere, I urge you to DISCUSS these edits properly before removing accurate and uncontested content wholesale. And you can park your threats at the door because they don't impress me. Bonusballs (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such content is considered cruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought or a television guide. At least add sources to the channel. If it doesn't have a website; then it doesn't exist. Finealt (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss your proposed changes before making them. WP:BRD entitles you to be bold, but if the community reverts your changes you need to respect that and DISCUSS IT PROPERLY like everyone else does. And websites exist for all the channels whose articles you are deleting. You can find links to them in the articles themselves. The fact that you even say that again casts doubt on your suitability to make such fundamental decisions about these articles. Can I say it again - please DISCUSS your changes and respect that your opinion is not the only one. Bonusballs (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you're adding is a bunch of ****. I am merging the articles to make it easier to navigate. All the channels air the same programs. Finealt (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are MATERIALLY mistaken and wrong in that. Please DISCUSS your changes so that you can discover more about the channels whose content you profess to be expert in. Your actions are indistinguishable from vandalism. I'm sure they're well intentioned but you must respect the wider Wikipedia community. Please DISCUSS your edits in the places where that discussion belongs - on each article's talk page. Bonusballs (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bonusballs reported by User:Finealt (Result: ). Thank you. Finealt (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing Matt Lucas, Metallica, and Skins references and replacing them? DanFlippingDoherty (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because Matt Lucas, Metallica, and Skins (a sexually explicit programme not shown on any Children's TV channel) were not and have never been nominated in the kids' awards ceremonies that you keep spraying your vandalism over. Bonusballs (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying Matt Lucas and Metallica are sexually explicit as well?DanFlippingDoherty (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you undid an amendment of an edit I had made as well, so I undid it again, and returned the citation to the page. DanFlippingDoherty (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been vandalising the same articles in the same way for several years, and been extensively blocked because of it - no-one is fooled. Bonusballs (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about Buster's inclusion is here --AussieLegend (✉) 14:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should point out that discussion is still underway. Jojhutton is just trying to implement changes before the discussion has concluded, so feel free to ad your thoughts. Everyone is welcome. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would Metallica or Slayer fans be happy if you called them pop? No, I guess. So why McFly?NinjaBinga (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an indefinitely blocked user on your other accounts, what you have to say is unfortunately not relevant, and since almost all of your edits are pure vandalism, whatever point you MIGHT have about McFly being a hardcore thrash metal band (yuh, right) is lost in the noise. Bonusballs (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out Randixx (talk · contribs); I've started an SPI against Finealt as their editing patterns and removals of information closely resemble each other. Nate • (chatter) 06:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the guy who was blanking Nick Jr. (UK and Ireland) and posting "F**K YOU!" to certain people? The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the same editor - same target articles, same pattern of behaviour. WP:DUCK must apply, surely. Bonusballs (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Disney Junior air Ducktales and Talespin during its Playhouse Disney years? I might be thinking of a different channel, but I'm sure it aired them in its Playhouse Disney years. The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to any sources I can see - Playhouse Disney only ever showed dedicated preschool programming designed for the under-fives, it didn't recycle older TV animation that was originally intended for older children. Toon Disney may have shown them, back in the day, but not Playhouse Disney, as far as I can see. Bonusballs (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you think I should nominate you for adminship? I think you have had great experience, and unlike me, you don't make tons of mistakes. The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's kind of you to say - but I don't think I'm quite at an admin's level, I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than it looks. Thanks though! :) Bonusballs (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	There is a lot of vandalism on List of programs broadcast by Qubo page. Thank you for fixing the problem. I wish I can find out who was responsible for putting all the PBS shows onto the Qubo lineup. I think you should look through Qubo's Facebook page to find out who was responsible for this vandalism? Cbears22 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for reporting this issue to an anonymous user for vandalism. Cbears22 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for so promptly reverting the vandalism on the Prestel page within an hour and more importantly without even being asked. Your action goes a long way to restoring my faith that there really are humans out there looking after Wikipedia - even though they may be aided by all kinds of automated tools - and it deserves public recognition. Inspeximus (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty bad LTA. It can't get much worse for the project. Has anyone talked to him about a 6 month wait then unblock with monitoring? He really seems ready to deal.

See also: User talk:Ponyo#HoshiNoKaabii2000

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshi is an interesting one - I'm not completely convinced that they're necessarily the same person as the numerous other sock names that have been attributed to them (e.g. TDFan2006, Fanforclarl, etc) but there's certainly enough definitive long-term abuse via other names (including the suite of Unorginal socks, and the various 'David Jetix'-style accounts) to make it clear that they don't seem to be here to be helpful. If they actually wanted to 'come back' and edit constructively, all they'd need to do is just create a new account and use it properly. The only reason the socks are spotted and blocked so quickly and so consistently is because they always engage in abuse within seconds of being created. That's abuse against other users, usually Cyphoidbomb, or against a small group of focus articles, inserting errors and other nonsense. You can spot it a mile off and it brings down the shutters instantly. If they just edited properly, chances are that they'd fly completely under the radar and remain completely undetected. Bonusballs (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Maybe they're not editing constructively because they're playing the cat and mouse game and bad edits are part of that play. Good edits would mean moving on, and they're still trying to win by responding to the bite of the original block(s).

One thing's for sure: They can't stay away from Wikipedia. Maybe they feel stuck out of the club, so to speak, so this is the only way they have left to be involved. Maybe they've grown up a bit and would like to take part constructively.

Would such an LTA case have to go through AN before an unblock, and would a negotiated return have to involve a 6-month wait? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TDFan was quite helpful. Fosyia was a bit too... 89.240.248.49 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting those. I'm guessing it's the same user who I've had dealings with in the past. I used to Google these entries, but gave up long ago. Ironically though, the information they add is right more often than not, so they've obviously got access to sources. Why they don't add them as references is anyone's guess. This is Paul (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe they're still at it. Does he/she never grow tired of such juvenile behaviour? This is Paul (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BB, do you have any knowledge of whether or not these edits [9][10] are BS or not? My instinct is that they're BS. One statement an IP made in the article was "CBeebies is owned by BBC in morning and ITV plc in night." That seems a peculiar arrangement. I don't know anything about British TV, but I don't see any mention of CBeebies at ITV's website, and it seems unlikely that they would own the block. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Yes, pure BS, absolutely untrue - ITV has never had anything to do with it. :) Bonusballs (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing maintenance tags? 108.255.117.102 (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "Ugly Mark"? Why is he in [[]]s when he doesn't have a Wikipedia page? Was he really nominated? 108.255.117.102 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Bonus Balls, do you want me to make a rap song about you? Yo sukah (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you do you will be blockaded such jerks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.112.187 (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you would stop vandalising this page (i.e. removing Matt Lucas/Metallica references) and just leave it be. It's so wrong. 80.111.234.133 (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now the page has been protected and the vandalism remains. It really is a mess. 86.43.181.62 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonusballs! I noticed while working through yesterday that you recently reverted an edit on the Tiny Pop article, featuring some upcoming programmes to the network. I wanted to make you aware that whilst the DreamWorks channel doesn't exist, as you rightly said, the upcoming programmes mentioned are coming to the network. The channel has been trailing shows like PJ Masks and Wellie Wishers since the start of 2017. I can certainly source that information for the article and add it back, but since it'd previously been removed, I thought maybe I should clear it with you to begin with. What do you think? Worth re-adding, or wait until the shows actually go to air? Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunil! Good question, kind of you to ask. Personally, I think it's perfectly OK to re-add that information if it can be referenced - e.g. with a link to a web page or other source which states that a particular show is coming to the channel in the future. References are what make the difference between a list of programmes which someone has just made up and added because they wish it was true (a very common problem, sadly) and actual genuine information which can be independently verified - as per WP:V. In the particular case of the editor you mention, sadly they've been vandalising Wikipedia for so long with their false information that anything genuine which they might have to add is lost in their untrustworthiness. So now and again something that's real might get wiped away along with the rubbish - but, again, that's what references are for, because referenced material can be checked and if it's right then there's no doubt at all. Whereas someone just adding 'Raggy Dolls (revival) (series 1-3 only)' to an article is very likely to find that their contributions just get deleted as quickly as they were added. Bonusballs (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me on that. The shows aren't actually starting on the network apparently, until around the first to second week of February 2017. I think in this case, it might be best just for me to sit on my fingers and wait until they launch. There isn't that long to go, to be fair. Appreciate the response though, and thanks :) Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be friends. Mike Littlejohn (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonusballs can you stop removing source or else you will be blocked because they might be the only way to edit is to ask. Thanks you. Mike Littlejohn (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not removing any sources, Mike. Only unsourced material which is quite obviously made up and not real, as per Wikipedia's rules on verifiability, which you can read at WP:V Bonusballs (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you join me and the other user for KidsClick Wikipedia page? Mike Littlejohn (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following your edit of the above I took the trouble to contact The BMJ directly for a response, which I received today:

"The article "The Science behind man-flu" is a narrative review of published literature on associations between gender and influenza and other common respiratory viruses. Though written in a light-hearted way, as articles in our Christmas issue sometimes are, it is a real article written by a family physician that cites existing studies. It is not a research paper or systematic review."

I took the item seriously because of recent reports of medical and pharmaceutical information being seriously biased due to single-gender studies and testing, mostly to the detriment of women. FYI. All the Best, Shir-El too 05:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful for the clarification. Thank you! Bonusballs (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please will you keep out of Nicktoons (UK and Ireland) programming please? Kid Danger is TRUE info! Seriously, it's on their official website! ^[1] - Anonymous User 08:00, 25 March 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.38.117 (talk)

I don't see any mention of an April 9th date on that page. Do you have a better source which gives that date? Bonusballs (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. This link might give you a clear idea. ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.38.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving the thing alone and saying thanks for the YouTube link. I'm sorry for the attitude, I just didn't want it to be edited again. I was getting tired of it after a while! - Anonymous User 16:20, 25 March 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.38.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonusballs. Thanks for reporting WiggleFan90 to WP:AIV. I have blocked a couple of other accounts that I think are the same user. If you believe that you are dealing with this user again, please feel free to leave me a note on my user talk page. Since this is active block evasion, there is no need to step through the template warnings like we usually do. We can just block immediately. Thanks again, Mz7 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonusballs: Won’t you understand the concept that Regency owned 30% of BabyFirst? The Regency Enterprises article said that they own BabyFirst of 30% as a ex investment. You should’ve removed Regency from the BabyFirst Infobox instead of reverting my entire edit. HappyINC (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect, but I don't think you know what those words mean. What do you mean by "ex investment"? You mean a former investment? If so, then that doesn't apply today and is therefore not relevant. Either way, you need to understand that just because company B owns channel C, does not mean that company B's owner A is the owner of channel C. It doesn't work like that. You seem to be doing this across a number of other articles, e.g. claiming that Turner channels are owned by WarnerMedia, when actually Turner own the Turner channels. WarnerMedia own Turner, but that's different to owning the channels directly. Please don't get frustrated, but accuracy is important. Nobody is trying to annoy you on purpose, but if you make an edit to an article it has to be technically correct, and things like 'ownership' have very specific technical meanings. Bonusballs (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Bonusballs, I went ahead and reported User:Shawndwu to WP:AN3 for continuing to edit war on Corn & Peg, they logged out after your 3rr warning revert and continued edit warring. Just in case you haven't seen them before, {{uw-ew}} and {{uw-3rr}} are useful templates to drop on someone's talk page in this kind of situation, especially since someone might not see your revert summary. creffett (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and apologies if this reply is in the incorrect format. I changed the phrase as "row" is neutral and suggests two sides to the story whereas Bergdorf's comments were racist by any reasonable standard:

"Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people... Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour. Your entire existence is drenched in racism. From micro-aggressions to terrorism, you guys built the blueprint for this s***. Come see me when you realise that racism isn't learned, it's inherited and consciously or unconsciously passed down through privilege. Once white people begin to admit that their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth... then we can talk. Until then stay acting shocked about how the world continues to stay f***** at the hands of your ancestors and your heads that remain buried in the sand with hands over your ears." (From Bergdorf's Facebook page)

I refer in particular to "ALL white people"; "(the white race) is the most violent and oppressive force of nature"; "racism... (is) inherited". Making reference to "nature" and "inheritance" is clear discrimination based on race, that whites are intrinsically racist as part of their biology.

No other person would be given the same lassitude if they were white and stating that blacks were, for example, lazy or criminal as part of their 'nature' which wasn't learned but 'inherited'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:1707:FD00:E5D4:19F6:4B88:E593 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Remember me from years ago? Anyway, I'm just wondering, do you think Disney Junior (British and Irish TV channel) should be protected? Seems to have a lot of IPs vandalising it. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit:

Maybe if you bothered to check the references (here's another one) you'd learn that:

• it IS in the Sky packet (package, bundle, multiplex, ... whatever-you-want-to-call-it)
• it is NOT encrypted (kind of a big deal with Sky because one can use ANY off-the-shelf ANY brand receiver and even without monthly paid subscription to some Sky TV bundle they can receive the program FOR FREE)

I'd expect you to revert the changes.

2001:569:51F9:1300:75E5:172D:B3E5:7B8B (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support re me splitting Sky Living from the Sky Witness article. I have asked for guidance from User:Tamzin as she was very helpful when I discussed resplitting the article and have asked her for advice so as to avoid an edit war which I might lose. Rillington (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you semi-protect that page indefinitely because of adding fake episodes? And I am fed up with it. --Annamargarita0 (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you block that user indefinitely as that user must stop? Block him indefinitely now! --Annamargarita0 (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna! I’m not an administrator so I can’t block anyone myself, but if I notice them vandalising again I can certainly report them via WP:AIV so I’ll watch out for any more changes to that page. Thanks! Bonusballs (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.29.101 (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed my edit, do you live in the UK, if you do, has Jack's Big Music Show never appeared in the UK or Europe? because the lost media wiki claims it has a uk dub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.10.219.218 (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - it wasn't shown in the UK, so I doubt if a dub exists either. Hope this helps! Bonusballs (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to add to your answer, i wanted to know because

1. A youtuber in the UK knows about Jack's Big Music Show 2. A Wiki page claims Jack himself appeared on a CBeebies Card 3. There are claims of a UK dub 4. Someone in the comments in the wiki page i mentioned said that the show was on the Noggin/Nick Jr site and there was some DVDs of it at the public library

Did it just air on Nick Jr or any other channel for very short time or was it home media exclusive?

Did Jack's Big Music Show never air in the UK or did you never see it when it was on TV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.10.219.218 (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly never seen it on UK TV and from a little research online there's not really a good reason to believe that it has ever been shown. For an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia, things need to be Verifiable, or in other words, something which anyone else could check for themselves without having to trust the word of whoever put it on Wikipedia. For that reason too, things need to be backed up by a Reliable Source - so for example you'd be wanting to see a British newspaper showing a review of the programme and saying what channel it was on, or some TV listings which show that the programme was on a certain channel at a certain time in the past. But there's nothing that I can find that shows this programme ever having been broadcast in the UK, and certainly I've never seen it myself either. I see what you say above about some people saying that it came out on DVD, or that they saw it in their library, but there's no evidence of that either. Sometimes what people write on the internet isn't quite right - they might have made a mistake or they might just be completely making it up, so that's why websites like Wikipedia need the 'verifiable' and 'reliable sources' I mentioned earlier. If you do find any better evidence that a UK version of this programme was ever planned, or made, or broadcast, then of course that then becomes something which can be put on Wikipedia, but without that proof, I'm afraid it's what Wikipedia call 'Unsourced', and that means that other people will almost always remove it until the evidence can be found. If you do want to continue searching then of course, good luck to you, but as I say, I think you'll find that this show was never broadcast in the UK at all. Bonusballs (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I noticed that you warned an IP for using multiple different IPs for disruptive editing, however when I looked at the history of the article in question, they are the only IP that has been making disruptive edits to the article. Mind explaining why you gave them this warning? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sure, if you mean the warning for 92.29.40.83 that's because of the edit here - [[11]] which is a repeat of the same edit made from 92.15.90.31 here - [[12]] and by 92.15.95.163 here - [[13]] and by 92.15.88.216 here - [[14]] - and those are just the edits made in the last month. The problem has been ongoing for a while and the article itself includes a concealed note explicitly warning not to add bogus voice cast. Bonusballs (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AH alright. Thank you for explaining your reasoning. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, any time. :-) Bonusballs (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out nobody noticed the games, etc. were hoaxes until 58.107.148.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) removed them. Sadly, their removal attempt broke formatting, so I've reverted it to the last non-vandal version. The hoaxer seems to be using the range 80.80.192.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))... possible rangeblock idea? wizzito | say hello! 06:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know it’s true, if you search up team umizoomi on archive.org it shows footage on it for Nicktoons, thx -colby 174.233.0.241 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re right - thanks! Bonusballs (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Reaction I Hate is Because It has Knifes and Blood and Danger Stuff on the Show. 2.123.143.210 (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with reverting Agosn's unsourced edits, but continuing to edit war with them isn't resolving the issue. I recommend you make a report at WP:AN3 regarding the edit warring, or WP:ANI to discuss the long-term issue of their adding unsourced content - their talk page is full of warnings that they haven't responded to. Waxworker (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

I would like to bring to your attention about a possible misuse of rollback. More specifically, this edit: [15]. I was reverting supposed vandalism (unexplained content removal, had the user added a reason, I would not have cared), and when you reverted, you used rollback without explaining why, on a non-vandalism edit. Remember, rollback is for vandalism edits. Next time, please leave a reason for non-vandalism edits. Thanks, and have a great day! Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 22:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is edit-warring and adding unsourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutlasterGuto (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]