Matt14451

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The First Hour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Crew. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Doctor Who: The Complete History is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who: The Complete History until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nthep (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Steve McNeil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable person. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Matt14451,

Since you're fairly new, I'm just going to assume you're not completely familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines. See WP:MOS for the general one, and maybe WP:VG/MOS for the one specifically on video games.

Right now, Disney Infinity: Marvel Super Heroes has a section called "Additional content". There is no other section about "content". I've also said before that the Playsets and Toy Box expansions are already covered in the release table, so what you're doing is redundant and therefore unnecessary. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines before reverting again for no reason. --Soetermans. T / C 12:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Same goes for Disney Infinity 3.0 of course. It simply does not make sense having a "additional content" section when an entire table with released content is additional. --Soetermans. T / C 12:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of Instant Game Collection games (PAL region) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 1 November 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) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Official Marvel Graphic Novel Collection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elektra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam Savage (British) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Savage (British) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Colin Moriarty has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cahk (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Kinda Funny, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. McGeddon (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Colin Moriarty, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. McGeddon (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please do not blank pages, as you did to GameSpot shows and podcasts, whatever the reason. Somebody will come to Wikipedia, find a blank page and wonder what on earth is going on. If an article is a duplicate of another, then redirect it. If you feel that an article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then look at the deletion policy. If it indeed meets the criteria for deletion in your judgement, then nominate it as appropriate. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Videogame Nation (TV), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Halo and GoldenEye 007. 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) 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IGN, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Miller. 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) 09:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve McNeil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andy Akinwolere, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inside Out. 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) 09:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are currently engaged in edit-warring. Usually, I'd just lose my cool and tell you that the constant reverting on your part is seen as pretty stupid behavior and you are being a jackass for not using the talk page to hash matters out. But I am not going to lose my cool, and I think you are misunderstanding the problem I am telling you about; I don't think you are a jackass. I just think you need to TALK on the TALK PAGE. Please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. A tag has been placed on Unspun with Matt Forde requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kleuske (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unspun with Matt Forde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave. 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) 09:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Bec Hill has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Walsall Adult Community College requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. WikiVirusC (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm WikiVirusC. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Walsall Adult Community College have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. WikiVirusC (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on The Scientist (Arrow) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://goodguymovies.com/movies/SuperHeroes/Green-Arrow.shtml. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is the problem with small caps? Can you point me where it is stated that it isn't allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexT1234 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it looks good and other similar Wikipedia pages don't have capitals. Remember to sign your comments using 4 ~'s. Feel free to consult an admin. Matt14451 (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Being a finale of Any kind does not automatically create notability. That's why we have the GNG. Supergirl already has several pages that don't meet that criteria and will eventually be merge. Please look at the select episodes from Arrow or Flash and how they differ from supergirl. Many of the reviews in the supergirl episode shouldn't be used because they are not professional reviews.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Bignole Why did you move the conversation from your talk page? I'll improve it tomorrow anyway with professional reviews from places like IGN. Some of the Arrow/Flash episodes aren't significant. Matt14451 (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

It isn't moved. Some people respond on one talk page, some have back and forth. I never know who wants to do what. Plus, I was on my mobile account at the time and you didn't sign your message (which I took as maybe you were relatively new and probably wouldn't know to watch my page for a response. I apologize if that was wrong). The page still doesn't meet the notability criteria. Adding a couple of reviews and ratings stuff isn't enough. I would recommend putting stuff in a draft page to work on. Then moving it once it meets the GNG and if it is appropriate. We've already had a discussion that most of Supergirl's episode pages need to be merged to a season page, because they are nothing but plot summaries and a few reviews. Not enough to warrant a page, even if the barest of GNG criteria are met.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Bignole Apologies for not signing my message on your talk page, I forgot due to being angry but did watch your page. What else can be added for it to meet "GNG"? I've previously created Arrow episodes with not much more. Matt14451 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Per the GNG, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A few reviews is not "significant coverage". Just the bare minimum coverage is talking like 5 or more professional reviews (not fansites, not user generated pages like TV.com, etc.). Then you need to show that there is a need for it to exist outside of the season page. Just for a few reviews is not sufficient. There should be enough independent coverage on the episode (e.g., production information, casting information beyond simply "John Doe was cast as Jane Doe" type of announcements). See what is done at Pilot (The Flash). Honestly, if we were to go through and remove information that was either trivial or irrelevant (example, using the idea that a director had directed 3 episodes of "Arrow" as "Production" information is both irrelevant and just fluff to make the article look fuller.) most of those pages would not exist. It is more that people don't bother either putting work into them to make them viable, or work in them to remove them. Technically, the way pages should be created is the main article (Arrow), then a list of episodes page, then season pages, then episode pages, and only when they need to be split. instead, people create all of them at the same time and there's no real information in any of them that justifies that level of splitting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for standardizing all the dates. No ego here, As long as they all fall in in date-order when asked, that's all I wanted! This was my first attempt at an edited. KrazyforKomix (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I finished adding the DTS template to the page this morning, it's quite time-consuming so it took a couple of days. The full dates look better than just numbers. Matt14451 (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Matt14451, you opened this review page over four weeks ago, but as yet have not started a review on the nomination. It appears to be your first GA review; do have any experience with the GA process at all, and have you examined the GA criteria? Opening a review means that you intend to do a complete review per the criteria, not merely make a few comments. Reviews are typically expected to be done in about a week's time, though it can take longer in a variety of circumstances. Nearly a month to get started is not typical.

If you didn't mean to open and conduct a complete GA review of the article, I will be happy to put the nomination back into the pool to await another reviewer. Please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry I forgot I did anything there. I have now blanked the page. Matt14451 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:BRD, if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again, as this is considered edit-warring. Instead, you should start a discussion in the article's talk page to establish consensus. - Radiphus (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Radiphus: I was restricting the table size to the page width and merging cells to make it consistent with other articles. Both actions make it easier to read. Please don't be disruptive yourself. Matt14451 (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could you provide a screenshot explaining how exactly you "restricted" the table? The table had always remained within page limits as you can see here. Your changes (screenshot and diff) made the table harder to read for the following reasons :

• Increasing the font size, caused more line breaks. It is common practice in award tables to set the font size at 95%.
• Removing the CSS style "white-space:nowrap" from the "Category" column, caused line breaks in more than one columns.
• Merging cells in the "Nominee(s)" column, that contain data about different awards is poor writing. We merge cells on the left side of the table which contain general data (year, award) that may apply to multiple rows, with which they are exclusively related. - Radiphus (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=677283022642168&set=a.677282862642184&type=3&theater. I guess it was caused by the "white-space:nowrap". Why is merging cells in the left-hand column acceptable but not in the right-hand columns where the exact same content is in adjacent cells?Matt14451 (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is your screen resolution and did removing "white-space:nowrap" fix your problem? You can see the old revision of the page, which includes your changes here. Please let me know. In regard to merging the cells that contain data about different awards, this makes the table harder to read, as it disrupts the normal reading from left to right (general to specific). I don't know where you might have seen something like that, or why you think this is a good idea, but take a look for example at List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones, where cells containing data (recipient and result) on different award ceremonies are never merged, even though they are adjacent to each other. - Radiphus (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not sure of my screen resolution but problem is solved with that edit. I think it's easier to read when cells are merged as there's less repetition, any policy? Matt14451 (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't have time to look policies up. It's a matter of common practice and common sense. Also, word repetition and data repetition are two different things, and i don't see how the table's readability is affected in this case. Would merging cells in the "Result" column in order to avoid word repetition make it even easier for you to read the table? Anyway... I will remove "white-space:nowrap" as this was introduced only recently and i am not sure if that's causing your problem. Please continue this discussion in the article's talk page if you would like to insist on your changes. - Radiphus (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

hey, Matt14451

I want to discuss of the page 'Bojack horseman season 5', I was edited that page and add one external link which is the relevant source for that page and I think it is also the notable link, I talk about that on the Teahouse page and the experience users also says that this is the notable link and they say that talk to the editor, so much so I am here. so can you please explain why this link was removed. the eternal link I add is http://www.whyit.in/bojack-horseman/ --Harshil84 (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi The link doesn't seem to have any useful information other than what is already available on the Wikipedia page, such as cast and plot. Small review from site which isn't notable otherwise it would belong in the reception section. Article without external links section doesn't necessarily look bad, look at other season articles for BH. Matt14451 (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) @Harshil84: I actually didn't say that the link is notable. Rather, I highlighted the policy which says that Non-notable sites can be used as external links. That's why I also asked you to discuss it with Matt14451, since there must have benn another reason. Now you have got the answer and I hope it helps. Also you have received a warning at your talk oage for this link spamming. Knightrises10 (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your input. Notable was probably the wrong word, I should have just said it's inappropriate. Matt14451 (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have opened an investigation into you, see here. [1] Thanks. Esuka323 (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as List of Adam Ruins Everything episodes, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from videoneat.com/documentaries/4505/adam-ruins-everything, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:List of Adam Ruins Everything episodes and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, List of Adam Ruins Everything episodes, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:List of Adam Ruins Everything episodes. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:List of Adam Ruins Everything episodes with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:List of Adam Ruins Everything episodes saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I copied the series overview and episode table from the main article so there's no copyright violation. Matt14451 (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

When replacing the over-detailed episode sections with the table please include episode summaries with each episode in that table - If you don't want to do this then kindly stop replacing all of the content, I'm not going to do half the work so with all due respect you either do ALL of the work or don't do it at all,
I'd rather not spend the next few weeks edit warring with you nor do I want to see either of us blocked,
Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 16:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I want to bring it to the mainspace, but something is keeping Robert McClenon, the AfC reviewer, from approving. Would you be willing to help? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kailash29792: Hi, it seems to have enough unique content like home media, music, etc. Episode summaries will be removed from the episode list one the article is brought into mainspace so it'll be even less of a copy then. It also has a similar amount, maybe more, to the season 1 article. I would move it into mainspace now but I'll let you do it as the creator. Matt14451 (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thought you'd say a lot of content is missing under "Production" and "Release", and dump sources I could use. But I just need the article to be big enough to enter the mainspace and thank you for saying it is, even if not FL worthy. I just hope Robert too agrees. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, not sure what can be added. Compared it to similar articles. His criticism is that the article identical to the episode list but that will be changed significantly once this goes live go that's invalid. Matt14451 (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kailash29792: It's annoying that there's a really high standard for articles like Draft:Supergirl (season 2) but others like The Simpsons (season 29) are accepted with literally just a lead, infobox and episode table. Matt14451 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is indeed annoying. I have raised an excellent question at List of Supergirl episodes, but I wonder if it will be addressed. Now that the production section is comprehensive, only the release section is small. Do you know what else can be added there? --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've added broadcast information for the UK airings of the season. I couldn't find a source for the finale date other than IMDB but left it as it's a reasonable date. Matt14451 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kailash29792: Looking at the various discussions that have took place regarding this article there seems to be 3 editors in support and 2 who oppose and possibly haven't seen the latest version. I think it'll be ok to copy-and-paste merge the articles. Matt14451 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

So far there's you and AussieLegend who support the move (who's the third? Legacypac?), and two who oppose: Alex and Brojam. I've requested them to re-evaluate, and if at least one of them comments positively I'll move the draft. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I meant you as the third. Creator should still be eligible to vote. Legacypac possibly, didn't give any objections about content. Matt14451 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed you have been moving The Simpsons (season 30) as a draft article. I do not know if you noticed, but I ended up changing my vote throughout the discussion. I just did not cross out my initial redirect vote. In fact, I blatantly said to the user in the comments, "I will agree to keep the article but the guide has to only have scheduled episodes only, not unscheduled episodes. Sound fair?" So please stop moving the season 30 article to a draft. Consensus should really be to keep the article, especially because the season started last night. Thank you. JE98 (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article has hardly any content, the episode table can be moved to the list of episodes page. Next step will be an AfD. Matt14451 (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is no requirement to repeat the same discussion for the same topic everywhere - actually doing that can be considered forum shopping, and thus the consensus applies across all. A discussion on an article talk page need not apply to just that article. Two separate discussions, two uninvolved editors you requested for not agreeing with you, no support. You can start a third, but I can give you spoilers on the result. Your edits were done last week (Special:Diff/860776259) - you need to gain consensus for them as they are now being disputed. There is no time limit on when edits can or cannot be disputed - you could have done it in 2016, and they could be disputed. As for links, see The Cry discussion. In the last revision before you edited it (Special:Permalink/860776259), the titles all included "Episode" - this was not changed. -- Alex^TW 16:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is not the place for a discussion, you should have started it as the talk page of the disputed article. I assume you meant Special:Diff/860776259, over 1 week ago and another user has added content since, therefore it's established and assumed to be accepted. We can't just remove any sourced content we don't like from any time and expect the original editor to generate a consensus. There is one editor who supported me so you can't claim I have no support. I still disagree with you completely on that matter. The Cry was only one season so is different. There should be consistency but in the meantime the series I have already done are established and accepted. Still haven't said why you removed episode numbers for each series either? Matt14451 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's a discussion about your behaviour, hence here is correct. What policy states that as soon as one other editor contributes, then your version is established? Hint: There is none. As I said, you could have done it in 2016, and they could be disputed. And it is. That editor did not support you, they gave you a suggestion first and that was it. Every requested editor you asked for disagreed with you - why request them when you're not even going to use their advice? And did I remove the episode numbers? No, they're still there. -- Alex^TW 01:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of what you think this discussion is about, you should have started one about the content on the talk page of the article after being reverted, see WP:BRD. As I said, you can't remove content from 2016 as it is assumed to be accepted once another editor edits the page. They are there now but you did remove episode numbers per series, leaving only overall episode numbers. Matt14451 (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

As should you have, so it was both of our edits that were being disputed. And what policy supports that? You seem keen on repeating it but have nothing to back it up. There is none, it's your own jargon. I removed no such thing - what was in the second column after my edits? -- Alex^TW 09:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

My edits were over a week old and accepted by editors of page as indicated by further changes by a different editor, what's your excuse for not starting a discussion on that talk page? You removed the column that includes the number of episodes per series. I can't remember the policy that I read but I know it exists. You can't revert a two-year old edit and expect the original editor to start a discussion, that's ridiculous, use common sense. A column with each number preceded by the word episode is not easy to read and is redundant. Your edits are here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Gogglebox_episodes&oldid=862472490. Matt14451 (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

What policy states that as soon as one other editor contributes, then your version is established? It's not that hard to answer. If you can't link it, you're making it up. If you can't back up your arguments, don't make them. Go Google it. Stop lying. And I know where my edits are - all episodes numbers included in it. Easy. -- Alex^TW 15:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not lying, stop casting aspersions, tried Googling. Common sense as well. It's not easy to read, ridiculous to include episode in every row, it makes it harder to read, literally no benefit. Matt14451 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

So, to sum it up, no policy, no argument, personal beliefs only, despite no editor that you requested supporting you. Did I get it? -- Alex^TW 16:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sarcastic personal attack again... "Thank you, it does look better." is support from another editor so stop saying there's no support for similar changes. Again, what is your excuse for not starting a discussion? I saw you cited WP:TV as rationale but where specifically is the support? To paraphrase you, I find it interesting to came to the Gogglebox article after I edited it... Matt14451 (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

No support. And you want to personally attack after not wanting personal attacks. Sigh. New editors who don't know their policies. -- Alex^TW 16:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I literally just quoted support so there is support. I paraphrased you so you're admitting you personally attacked me multiple time? Another policy you've broken. Matt14451 (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Please don't use mean words to me! Oh, here's your mean words back at you!" Funny how that works.

Funny how you state there's "support" without proof. Everyone else on Wikipedia supports all of my edits. I just said there is, now you have to believe me! No proof needed! Worked out that other policy yet, or are you still lying and making it up? -- Alex^TW 16:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have told you to stop with the personal attacks multiple times yet you ignore me. Proof you're so desperate for - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casualty_(series_33)&action=history. Again, what is your excuse for not starting a discussion? Matt14451 (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't see your discussion for support either. Where is it? Not there. Pot, kettle, black. Found that made-up policy yet? WP:MYVERSIONISESTABLISHEDYOUCANNOTREVERTIT, maybe? -- Alex^TW 16:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I copied the quote above from that page from an edit summary, clearly there. You looking for WP:MYEDITSAREALWAYSBESTANDNOONECANDISAGREEOTHERWISEIREVERTTOPERSONALATTACKSSTRAIGHTAWAY? Productive isn't it... Matt14451 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

And where is the discussion for it? You have nothing to back up your changes. Edits coming to that Casualty article soon... -- Alex^TW 16:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't discussed but obviously accepted by regular editor of page by their edit summary, discussion not needed when no objections. If you remove my changes then I will revert you. Matt14451 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Based on what policy? -- Alex^TW 16:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Consensus is assumed by no one reverting my changes since, thanking me as well. If you want to remove my changes again you need to gain consensus, either by no one reverting you which I have already said I will or through the talk page of that article. Matt14451 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

And that statement is, again, based on what policy? Proof of the thanks? -- Alex^TW 17:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can't remember the policy as I already said, common sense as well. I have already given you a quote and a link, what other proof do you want? Matt14451 (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

So, you're making things up again. No policy, no argument, no explanation to revert. -- Alex^TW 17:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I found WP:EDITCONSENSUS which applies to both Gogglebox and Casualty examples mentioned above. I made edits then other user(s) made subsequent additions to my edits, therefore a new consensus was made. You need to make a new consensus to make further changes. Matt14451 (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Although I personally wish FireTune should be kept (I am not neutral in the matter) I am concerned in case some might view Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FireTune as a controversial close and best left to an admin. This went against a 'delete' vote and the deletion request by the nominator. I would be grateful if you review and confirm. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Matt14451 You have moved my recently created article on Mr. Black to Draft. I can see that a Mr. Black article existed in 2006 and was deleted back then. However, this is a new article. The name is being used for the title of a new Australian television series which has been filmed and will debut soon. Can you please restore this article? J Bar (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hamburger button / Menu icon. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Have a look at this discussion and consensus about not including review score tables on television articles. - Brojam (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I didn't see that. I saw the album ratings template in other TV articles before implementing it here. The consensus is three years old, mostly about a different template and a few editors who didn't contribute to that have recently contributed to its inclusion so it might be a good idea to have a new discussion. Matt14451 (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Administrator notePlease note I have granted this on a trial basis for one month. At the end of that month you may re-apply at WP:PERM for permanent addition of the tool. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), I'll try and use it as much as possible where appropriate in the next month. Matt14451 (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have added a malformed template here. Not sure what your intent was or I would have fixed it. Congratulations on your Rollback rights! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I used Twinkle to report the IP for vandalising/edit-warring the linked page. It asked for revision ID's but seems to have messed up. Sorry. Matt14451 (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Matt, Over the next week or 2 could you add the episode summaries to The Apprentice (UK series thirteen) as you've not done it, If you don't want to that's absolutely fine but it means I'll have to revert right back which I really don't want to do, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I will have a look soon when I have a good amount of time as I forgot about this issue. The current version is still better than the old version though. Matt14451 (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Matt, Brilliant thank you :), There's no time limit so even if you do it a month later that's absolutely fine, As I said before I know I'd make a mess of it so would rather ask someone who can do it, Thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 17:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have no experience with writing the summaries either. Watched the episodes live so will need to rewrite the official summaries. Matt14451 (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Been thinking about doing a List of episodes page for this show as well, what do you think? 17:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 

Hello, Matt14451. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Primefac, thank you. There have been a couple of occasions where I've waited for someone else to move a page as I didn't have the ability. I will use it as much and as effectively as possible over the next month. Matt14451 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The edit you made on Template:Green Arrow broke parts of the template. Luckily someone was able to fix that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B04E:3B6F:828:6C96:8A96:5FC1 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, not sure what went wrong, thanks for fixing and bringing it to my attention. Matt14451 (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Matt14451: The page is now ready to be moved. When I tried to move the page it says ‘There is an already an article with this name’ DonutsAndBakewells (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, it says that because a redirect with the same name already exists. Once its ready, we can do a round-robin move so that the history of the page is preserved rather than just copy-pasting the article contents. The draft has very little content at the moment so isn't suitable for the mainspace, more content will be available once the series airs, possibly before but not yet. Also see WP:TOOSOON. Matt14451 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am currently adding more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonutsAndBakewells (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

You can do so while the article is a draft. Matt14451 (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just curious: in your common.js file, is there a reason as to why you copied all of Andy M. Wang's code at User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap.js directly, rather than using importScript('User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap.js');? As I said, just curious. -- Alex^TW 12:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wasn't sure if the whole code was necessary so copied it all and tested in userspace after receiving the page-mover ability. I have since used it for requests at RM:TR and Demons of the Punjab. I will replace it with that smaller version now, thanks. Matt14451 (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain your reversion of my round-robin move at Samsung i8000 please? L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @L293D:, I didn't see that you already fulfilled the request from RM:TR. Used the swap script to swap the two pages. Matt14451 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've undone your revert, assuming it was en error. I'm puzzled that the script moved the pages back where they were, but thanks for trying to help at WP:RM/TR. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for correcting my mistake. Matt14451 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. As a regular contributor to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, I would like to make the suggestion that rather than using the Undo function to clear edits, instead use the "Clear all requests" button on the page. Per Help:Reverting: However, reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive, and WP:QUO: Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits, and WP:ONLYREVERT: The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits. Clearing the edits rather than reverting results in less revert notification spam for the requested, and provides cleaner summaries for anyone that has the page in their watchlist. If you need further ideas on how to clear or summarize completed moves, I recommend taking a look at the page's history and seeing the summaries of other editors. Thanks. -- Alex^TW 12:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alex. Ok, sure. I'll just remove the requests without reverting in the future. Matt14451 (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Mz7 (talk · contribs). Matt14451 (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Since you just moved Flooded's draft over the top of Heard It in a Past Life and swapped the histories, can you please delete the resulting userspace draft redirect? I know that's how page history swaps work, but I'd wish not to have my name as the creator of something in his userspace. Technically I'm now the "creator" of that, so I'm wishing to have it deleted. Thanks. Ss112 14:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, that makes sense but I'm not an admin so can't delete pages, sorry. You can nominate it for deletion. Matt14451 (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thought page movers could delete pages left as redirects when they move them? Ss112 14:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think there's an option to not leave a redirect behind when moving a page but I can't delete a page after a move has took place or using the "swap" script. Matt14451 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to help expand? At least dumping sources onto the draft while I expand from them? The production section really needs expansion. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sure, I'll see what I can do. Matt14451 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Matt. Thanks for doing the rename for me, I really appreciate it. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Simon, no worries. Matt14451 (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I did actually enter a source: the network's official page for the episode, listing it as Season 2, Episode 23. I couldn't tell you why they're making things so complicated, but they are. 2607:F2C0:E342:59:ADA3:71DD:1C37:BF1A (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trance Fury and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cris Urena for the 3rd time, even though they had no participation. Per WP:RELIST, most discussions shouldn't be relisted more than twice, and if it happens, then the relisting editor should leave an explanation. Usually that happens in high-participation/contentious discussions that have yet to reach consensus. For discussions with little or no participation and 2 relists, it's almost always better to leave them for admins to handle, since an admin can close the discussion as "delete" by effectively treating it as an expired WP:PROD. Something to keep in mind for next time. Thanks for your help at AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks I'll keep that in mind. Matt14451 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Matt14451. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Matt14451 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could you please move this again, to "... (song)", small "s"? Thanks. PamD 17:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Pam. Done. Matt14451 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

As far as I can tell the plot description you used in the above draft was copied from an external source. Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Diannaa (talk · contribs), I copied them from List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes but forgot to use correct attribution, will copy again but will attribute properly this time. Matt14451 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matt14451. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Bbb23:

 

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

Matt14451 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I made the account "Matthew Fieldhouse Temp" today to change my username, WP:FRESHSTART, with the plan of putting the right things on the userpage, etc if I could get the right username. Not a fan of the numbers after my name. Don't recognise other accounts.

Decline reason:

Odd that the other accounts mention you by name and harass an editor you were in conflict with. Looking at the previous problems (and IPs) noted in the archive of this SPI, this does appear to be a pattern of deception. Kuru (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

---

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

@Kuru: I used an IP and haven't done so after that report in the archive, only became aware of the first report when the second was made and a notice was posted on my talk page for it. I have never used an account other than this one for editing, wasn't going to use Matthew Fieldhouse Temp (talk · contribs) for editing until process complete. Do I have to say they're my accounts to get my account back even though they're not? Matt14451 (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Checked the archive again and see that @Bbb23: found me innocent in 2016. I don't remember that incident at all. Matt14451 (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You know that WP:CheckUser confirms the IP address accounts have logged in with, so considering AlexTheDoctor had the same IP as this account, and it was clear ATD (who obviously interacted with AlexTheWhovian before) was a harassment only account, you haven't a cat in hell's chance of persuading anyone that ATD wasn't you. And even though it's not up to me decide, you chances of unblock are slim to say the least, considering harassment is not a legitimate reason to have multiple accounts (and frankly disgusting behavior). TedEdwards 09:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@TedEdwards: Must've have been someone else in my house or a neighbour, or a mistake on the checking user software. My name obviously isn't Alex. All I know is that I never used or interacted with that account. I've interacted with AlexTheWhovian as he edits a large range of articles regularly. I haven't harassed anyone and I would obviously say it's never ok. Just had a quick look at that user and there was fault from both Alex's, more so Doctor, with the similar name likely being created in response to the AlexTheDoctor (or whatever he's called now) was an IP and was reverted on Template:The Big Bang Theory.

I have made many useful contributions and shouldn't be punished for the actions of some idiot. Matt14451 (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've used Wikipedia at Uni so if two accounts just need to use the same IP address once for them to be picked up by that check user thing then it's probably there instead of my home.

There may have been an opportunity to post an integrity-based response, but that opportunity has long since passed. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kuru: You people are accusing me of something I haven't done. Bbb23 (talk · contribs) looked at my private IP without any behavioural evidence that's apparently required before a check. This is what I get for trying to improve Wikipedia. Matt14451 (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

My little brother did it, bad unblock requests, no get out of jail free cards. -- Alex^TW 00:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

He really needs to take responsibility for his actions and apologize for abusing multiple accounts to harass you. I had a quick read of his AlexTheDoctor talkpage and noticed he uses the same defense mechanism against you as he did me when I made a sockpuppet report about him months ago. He's quick to say that people have a hostile attitude, you can see it throughout his responses on the talkpage. Esuka323 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Esuka323: You accused me of being DownFrame which was proved to be false. I have done nothing that needs apologising for, they are not my accounts. I see that AlexTheDoctor was accused of being an IP which I'm obviously not so which one is it? Matt14451 (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you know how many times admins would hear that? "It was someone else in my house", "the software was faulty", "they're not mine"? I almost feel sorry for them. But six accounts... That's next level. -- Alex^TW 10:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Already said that only one of those six is mine. What else can I say? They're are not mine. Matt14451 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Shame, despite everything you still won't apologize for your poor behavior. Esuka323 (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

"despite everything", as in this conversation where I'm continually accused of something I'm saying I haven't done? Why should I admit and apologise to something I haven't done. I have made thousands of useful edits and this is what I get in return. Matt14451 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The latest edit I can see from any of the abuse is from November 6 so blocking after a month and a half of no activity is not preventing anything. 14:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you have "thousands" of useful edits, you've made two serious rule violations to harass an editor you clearly don't get along with. No one deserves to be treated like that, if you had any sort of remorse for your actions people would be more likely to be sympathetic towards you. You need to understand that by just being honest you're more likely to only be blocked for a few months if that rather than forever. Esuka323 (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I might not get along with him due to disagreements regarding content but I wouldn't harass anyone, I even removed harassment from his talk from an IP. I'm being honest when I say I never used any of those accounts. The only mainspace editing AlexTheDoctor and their associated accounts is on Template:The Big Bang Theory. I didn't see the dispute at the time but solved it when the dispute started again recently by creating articles to fill the empty space. If I was involved at the time I would have done what I did recently, not just revert. Matt14451 (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

All you've managed to do so far is make things go from bad to worse by refusing to be honest, not admiting to what you and we know full well, and refusing to apologize for any of your disgusting behavior. No matter how many times you say it wasn't you, we are not believing you. Hope your understand. TedEdwards 17:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am being honest but you're just refusing to hear my side of the story and sticking to what you think you know. It's obvious that three of those abuse accounts are connected but there's no behavioural evidence linking them to me. Even if I lied and said those accounts were mine I obviously wouldn't be unblocked so there's nothing I can do. Matt14451 (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The first edit was a revert on above inked template, why wouldn't I just use this account instead of making a new account to do so? It seems clear that an IP reverted AlexTheWhovian then created a few accounts. Matt14451 (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You say there's no behaviorial evidence. Well, there is; it's patently obvious, not that's it's needed, as CheckUser has confirmed you as ATD. I find it funny that when CheckUser has found you innocent, you say it's defintely working fine, but here, you say it must be broken. And your refering to the IP that Alex reverted before you reverted Alex. Well I notice ATD was created 3 days earlier, probably in response to a discussion here, and not to do with the IP Alex reverted. So I think the IP has nothing to do with you, looking at this account and the IP interaction timeline and seeing there's one page that both of you edited (one of the few things you said I actually believe, along with the fact you go to uni and live in a house), and Alex made the mistake of assuming ATD was the sock of the IP, not an account. But anyway, at the time Bishonen thought ATD was the sock of another account (see [2]). So why can't you just admit and apologise? TedEdwards 19:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Behavioural evidence is needed before the checkuser but guess Bb23 doesn't care about privacy. All I know is that I don't have socks, all software fails at some point. I didn't notice that but did see AtW accuse AtD being the IP quite a few times. Again, disagreeing about content is never a reason for harassment and not something I would do. That interaction timeline says practically the same when comparing me with the IP and AtD, more for AtED but we didn't edit the same sections, connections between me and AtED are pages like ANI and TV project's talk which are busy, plus the talk page of TBBT template where I created pages to solve the problem rather than reverting. AtD might be a sock, I just know he's not mine. Even if I apologise I wouldn't be unblocked so what's the point? All my time and effort on this site wasted. Matt14451 (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Folks, this discussion has outlived its usefulness. First, it's going in circles. Second, it's goading Matt14451. So, no more. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You made a false accusation and didn't follow policy. Matt14451 (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! This is a generic message created and copied to all editors using scripts that I have created. As I have recently changed my username from "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21", any scripts that I have created that are listed at your common.js page may, at the moment, no longer be working. To fix this, simply update all occurrences of "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21"; see here for an example. All the best! -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Matt14451. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of The Apprentice episodes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@GUtt01: who edited it and other articles on the show in case they want to keep it. Matt14451 (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Matt14451. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Flying".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 08:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'll do that refund if I'm unblocked, draft needs some more content. Matt14451 (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You'll never be unblocked unless you appeal properly. Unlike some blocks which have a time limit, yours is indefinite. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I e-mailed an appeal Monday morning. Matt14451 (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Keep Your Enemies Close (Arrow). Since you had some involvement with the Keep Your Enemies Close (Arrow) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gonnym (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Think that was just a spelling mistake when creating the page so I support deletion. Matt14451 (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:The First Hour Logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:League of Assassins (Arrow), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Matt14451. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Keep Your Enemies Closer".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Matt14451. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "League of Assassins".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Battles Lost and Won Screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Matt14451! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:The Conjugal Conjecture screenshot.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply