User talk:Xeditboy

Hi Xeditboy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits on multiple articles. We go by MOS:TVRECEPTION which I stated in my edit summary but you clearly ignored it. So here it is again: "Unless the ratings of all episodes are below one million viewers, viewership should be presented in tables or templates as being rounded to the nearest million (for example, 2,653,000 should be written as 2.65)." In the case of Nurses, for example, some episodes do have over a million viewers, so it should be with two decimal places. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: The forced rounding two place for over a million imposed by MOS:TVRECEPTION is flawed and gives false information in the rounded figures and is unnecessary when the source figures are only one place more than two. Xeditboy (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is based on consensus, so if you believe it is flawed and don't want to follow it I suggest you start a talk page discussion about MOS:TVRECEPTION at WP:TV. Heartfox (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: It's not based on consensus, it's based on a select few editors views on how things should be done and have the time to write up MOS which is suppose to be a guideline based manual, not some kind of enforceable rule book. Xeditboy (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy that numbers must be not rounded if they're not in millions? It's not supposed to be your place to decide either how to write a figure. When multiple editors are against you, either seek a consensus or you're getting complained. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: There probably is no BS policy, but it's been standard practice for a lot shows especially Australian ones. As for the stupidity of rounding one digit less of above million figures to two places and bastardizing the already rounded data, the only reason for that seems to be that stupid defunct sources like zap2it rounded to two places. Xeditboy (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So there isn't yet you're deciding what goes or not? No probably there isn't. But asides from policies, Wikipedia also relies on common editor practices. That said I haven't seen many shows using hundred thousands instead of millions. Also note that American Dad is a show with 18 seasons. Now it may have viewers below one million, but once it didn't. When you round up a number it only increases by less than 10,000. Unless you get a consensus, your preference of how to write a show is not going to be applied, especially in a show that has consistently used rounded viewership figures representing millions and not hundreds of thousands. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point stands that rounding one digit less is complete idiotic and misrepresents the data and stating millions in a column heading when all the values are below that is absolutely farcical. Xeditboy (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How come a change less than 10,000 is idiotic? There's a reason that people use rounding numbers. And not exact. Do you think sources show you exact viewership? They don't. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: Do you understand anything? Rounding say 1.006M to 1.01M is idiotic, counter productive and further misrepresents the already rounded figure. Just as the column heading stating millions for a column that has all values below it or not even above one million. Xeditboy (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So your problem is 4,000 difference? Films even have a bigger rounding difference. A small difference in viewership numbers in the article doesn't matter. But consistency matters. Alright? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: You don't get do you? Rounding one decimal off is pointless and achieves nothing and stating millions in the column when values are at or below one makes no sense. Now if you have something decent to reply, do it or stop spamming this talk page. Xeditboy (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense for you, but it's done because it makes things simpler. If you have a problem with a difference of representation of viewers like say 4,000 why should people change to accommodate your preference? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: You are an idiot who can't read, I said you can reply if you had something decent to reply. As in a real reason for single digit rounding or why millions is used when there is no millions. So go away with your spamming replies. Xeditboy (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is the real reason. Rounding is used to make reading and calculating numbers easier. I'll go away as you asked but please don't insult me again, personal attacks are against the rules. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: You gave no real reason as their is no calculating involved, go read what I wrote or go back to school and learn to read with comprehension. Xeditboy (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said on our end, but the reader's end. And frankly it's just easier on the eyes. Also there's a matter of consistency in style above all. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And also please stop pinging me. You say you want me to leave and yet when I say I'll do you instead show intent to continue arguing and attacking me. I already told you what you need to do, I won't be responding to any more replies of yours. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: Don't tell me what to do when you can't gave a real reason for what you want. The End. Xeditboy (talk) 21:55, 27 September 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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are you able to watch Episode 2 already? I can't watch it for another 25 minutes, at least. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: Is available after 07:00 (UTC), but doesn't cache to episode list until later. I use my own kodi app to get new eps off their unordered section listing that caches much faster. Basically the official app sucks and doesn't run on my DVR box either. Xeditboy (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. BilCat (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was able to watch it at midnight Atlantic time. Rusted AutoParts 06:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bilorv was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The sources show that the program exists, but not that it is notable. Did it win any awards? Are there any reviews of the show by professional critics?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reginald the Vampire and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald the Vampire, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Bilorv (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Accused (2023 TV series). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.
This is in regards to the edit summary you attached to this edit. Such attacks, including the hostility and misogyny, are completly unnacceptable. It's a given that you will need to cease such attacks going forward, or your account will likely be blocked, but an apology to the editor in question is certainly called for as well. Calm down and give it some thought. - wolf 04:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Quantum Leap (2022 TV series), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I noted the Quantum Leap talk page, where you keep calling another editor a "control freak" and making various accusations, but the "piss off you bitch" in edit summaries is way out of line. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xeditboy,

I can see that another Wikipedia user has been templating you since August 2021 and has been ignoring your repeated requests to stop.

Just a heads up, you are entirely within your rights to request that the other user stop editing your talk page, per Wikipedia:USERTALKSTOP. The other user ignoring this request can be seen as harassment. You could bring this to an administrator's attention through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

(Probably best to avoid calling users presenting as women "bitches" in the future, for obvious reasons. Apparently saying "fuck off" is within Wikipedia's standards of civility though, believe it or not, so knock yourself out with that one!) Cjhard (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cjhard: I'm just tired of her harassment on this talk page and is out of line justifying her removal of episode titles that are not visible in an article as hidden content can not be subject to her WP:OR rule, which isn't correct any way as the title are published on the EIDR database. Also she will never respect any ones talk page and feels vindicated with being backed up by other editors that support her rigid views and actions on edits. Xeditboy (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xeditboy, you need to decide if you want to continue with this vendetta or not. "piss off bitch" is not acceptable. Cjhard, "fuck off" is NOT the same as "piss off bitch". Hint: one of them contains the word "bitch". Drmies (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: First off I wasn't talking to you, second it's not a vendetta, she harasses me on my talk page, and third I shouldn't have used the word, but she has just pushed me too far on my own talk page. And you are obviously one the editors who support her rigid views. Xeditboy (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also your comments are just as harassing. Xeditboy (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an administrator here. We have some standards, and you violated them, multiple times, talking to the same editor--so I'd call that a vendetta. If you can't handle being warned on your own talk page, do the adult thing and find a way to deal with it without resorting to such name calling. You could have asked them to not post on your talk page. You could have not picked fights with them on that talk page--and I saw that on that talk page, and in the history of others, you do not have consensus, and you might actually end up getting blocked for making edits without proper sourcing. So that whole "you support her rigid views" means nothing at all to me: you are editing against consensus, you are editing without proper sourcing, it seems, and you are calling other people "bitches". Have you tried apologizing for what you said? Because what you're really saying is "she was asking for it". ec Calling my comments "harassing" is not going to curry any favors with any administrators.Drmies (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Here's the point you don't and can't add sources for content that's hidden that's why the episodes are hidden. Xeditboy (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally missing the point. Your behavior is not acceptable. It has nothing to do with sources or whatever. But while I'm here: if there are no sources, it's not encyclopedic information. You should consider Wikia. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's more descriptive than your original "fix bad edits" comment, or your "per policy" comment - but you still haven't provided a link to the WP policy which supports any of your claims here. I will not revert you again, as we are approaching WP:3RR, and it would seem to be a waste of time anyway. If you want to avoid being reverted in future I suggest you provide clearer edit summaries, especially in cases like this where your reverts have the appearance of being contentious.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tollens (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens: I am not edit warring I am fixing incorrect edits from the same editor who keeps using unneeded and repeating bear link references and continues to put episode summary related details outside of the episode summary area. The editor refuses to follow this standard practice that is used on other episode listings. Xeditboy (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you believe the edits are incorrect. You need to discuss with them at the talk page – continually reverting is by definition edit warring. Your edits do not fall under any exemption from the edit warring policy. Tollens (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens: So you don't think that episode summary related details should belong in the episode's ShortSummary field instead of cluttering them altogether in the season's section lead? Xeditboy (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything at all about the content of your edits – I'm not familiar enough with articles about television shows to say one way or the other. Tollens (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens: You don't need to be it's all about what's the best basic layout and readability is. Xeditboy (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what I think anyway – even if everyone were to agree, enforcing that version without discussion would still be disruptive. Please discuss at the talk page of the article. Tollens (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tollens: I'll leave it to you the fix and police Georgia76's incorrect edits as he has just done as I'm over editing that list. Xeditboy (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that television series are not to be removed from "YYYY television series premieres" category just because they haven't already premiered yet. A television series that has not had any premiere date announced at all obviously shouldn't be categorized for a presumed premiere year that hasn't been specifically announced by its network — but once the network has announced a specific firm premiere date, the series does belong in the appropriate year category.

Obviously, if something then happens to get its premiere pushed back, then we can pull it back out of the category when that time comes, but once the network has specifically announced a specific date in 2024 as the premiere of a new series, the show's article does belong in the appropriate category, and the only legitimate grounds for pulling it out of the category would be if the network explicitly announced that for some reason they were walking said premiere date back and delaying or cancelling the premiere entirely. We don't withhold it from the category just because it remains theoretically possible that a delay could happen — we leave it in the category until such time as a delay has actually happened for real. There literally couldn't be any Category:2024 television series debuts categories at all if it worked the other way, because none of the television series in that tree have already premiered yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Family Law (Canadian TV series). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Edit warring has already been discussed with you on this and several other articles, so it is clear this is not unknown to you. Enter into productive and neutral discussion regarding the content issues on the article's talk page. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't mark reversions or disputed content as "minor edits" - see WP:MINOR. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butlerblog: Talk to Taeisawesome21, it's their edits that are violating MOS:TVINTL. Xeditboy (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about "violating" content MOS. It's about edit warring. There are no exemptions for MOS. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to have read the discussion around this issue regarding what the template rules actually are, even though it was YOUR issue. So i'll copy the conclusion for you here:

Some things to point out regarding followup on this. After confirming some things with another WP:WikiProject Television editor who works on the {{infobox television}} template, they noted that it depends on how it is produced and distributed. We do not list international distribution (we all knew that from WP:TVINTL). It should be the original network only. However, if it's a co-production, then you do list the networks using {{plainlist}}. Regardless, (and as @Racheal Emilin noted) it should match what sources say. Furthermore, the infobox, the article prose, and the categories should all match up.

To restate that and clarify: We don't list international broadcasters just because they are broadcasters. We list original broadcasters in the country of production. If it's a co-production that involves two countries (as in the case of Wild Cards), then, and only then, do you list those broadcasters. (Use the {{plainlist}} template when it's multiple entries.)

If the dates are different for the episode table, use |OriginalAirDate= for one and |AltDate= for the other. There are {{Episode table}} parameters for both of those that allow you to customize the table title (changing "original air date" to CTV or Canada and "alternate air date" to CW or US, or whatever makes sense). If you don't know how to do this formatting properly, ask. (You should use {{Start date}} for original air date, and regular MOS:DATE format, i.e. January 1, 2024, format for alt date, but if you don't, my bot will pick up the fix.)

All that being said, do not edit war over it. If there's a discrepency between the two of you (@Taeisawesome21 and @Xeditboy), discuss it on the article talk page. Each one of these appears to be a little bit different in so far as who is producing and where it's distributed, so handle each one accordingly and within the guidelines of WP:CIVILITY and WP:COLLAB. If you can't work on it collaboratively without edit warring, I will not hesitate to open a WP:ANI report and request a WP:TBAN to prevent further disruptive editing. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So all of this is settled, and like I tried to tell you, country of origin is determined by who is producing the show. And since Wild Cards, and Sight Unseen shared the same sources stating that they were being co-produced by the CW, what applies to one, applies to the other. Both need to list the USA and the CW in country/network respectively and should be listing the airdates for both networks in the episode table. Stop removing valid content. Racheal Emilin (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]