Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:16, 10 March 2015 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Cyphoidbomb/Archive 5) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

A cookie for you

174.91.69.244 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Sky Plc

bskyb does not exist anymore the company has changed name to sky plc no need to change my update

Destructive Destroyer

Happy Holidays!

Favre1fan93 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

POKEMON XY

Do you not like it? Season 18 has the same title as Season 17. Nothing is added so in order to make things easier when it comes to making the two separate pages, they have to be Season 1 and 2 for XY sake, but they're still listed as Seasons 17 and 18 for the overall show sake. I think it works out fine. - Jabrona (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jabrona:, thanks for the note. I'm not familiar with the series, so I don't understand what you're going for. We need to make articles intuitive and accessible for people who don't understand what the series is. All I see from my perspective as a casual editor is that S17 and S18 for some inexplicable reason contain content from S1 and S2. If there's something noteworthy about Season XY, then maybe we need a clear prose description before re-introducing this content? There are other weird anomalies like a subject header "Pokémon: Best Wishes! (Series 4)" which is followed by a sub-header Season 14: Black & White, when Series and Season are used interchangably between UK and US to mean basically the same thing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, allow me to fill you in on all of this. The show is split up into five different generation eras each marked as a "series" containing 3-5 seasons each. So each generation era is kind of like a different show (labeled "Series 1", "Series 2", "Series 3", and so on) except it's not marketed as such and all the seasons are counted together. For example, the first season of the Advanced Generation series is the first season is of the AG series, but it's Season 6 overall when counting the first five seasons of the first generation series it's following after. So far, each season has had it's own title so there was no need to ever put "Season 1" or "Season 2" in any season to differentiate a couple. But with Pokémon XY (the FIFTH generation series as it's titled "Series 5") it's different since there's no subtitle added to it's second season (Season 18 overall) and it's basically the same as Season 17. Since Season 17's page is listed "Pokémon XY episodes" it's rather hard to make a Season 18 page since it would also be titled "Pokémon XY episodes" and we can't have two pages with the same title. The solution to this would have to label the S17 page "Season 1" and S18 would be "Season 2". Fans of the show would see that these are two different seasons and they'll see that the Seasons 1 and 2 labels are just for the XY series, and not the whole series overall. Does this make more sense to you? - Jabrona (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This is mind-boggling to me. I only pray another casual user will make sense of it. Is there any way to avoid redlinking sections? If so, I'll yield on the matter, but I think the issue could be supported with prose that explains what's going on. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is mind-boggling, but lots of fans of the series would get this. We are currently on Season 18 overall, but it would be Season 2 of the XY generation series. They'll understand the "Season 2" label since Season 18 doesn't contain a subtitle so we wouldn't have to use "Season 2". Like with the Advanced Generation series, you have each season titled differently: "Advanced", "Advanced Challenge", "Advanced Battle", "Battle Frontier" so no "Season 1" or "Season 2" label would have to be used. Every other generation series (Series 1, Diamond & Pearl, and Black & White) have different subtitles for all their seasons. With Pokémon XY, it's two seasons are both are just "Pokémon: The Series XY" so the Season 1 and 2 labels would have to be used so they can have different pages with different titles. I'm not sure what you mean by "redlinking sections". Care to explain that to me? - Jabrona (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

tldr; there wasn't any consensus for this mess you went ahead and made. Also, Misplaced Pages never has, and probably never will cater for fans. That's why they made Wikia. —KirtZ 08:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what I did was nothing more of a mess than what you're doing. How dare you criticize me and then not even read any of the discussion that should have you think otherwise on this with how you're all "too long didn't read" remark. You're being silly here. If anything what I did was a good faith edit and you should be very proud of me I came up with the proper solution for this thing. Like I told your friend Cyberpower on his page, perhaps I should have started a discussion but I didn't think to do one. I saw there was a problem with how this was to be handled and I immediately jumped in to solve it in perhaps the best way possible. Both seasons have the same title and the fact that they're different seasons show they should have separate pages. You can't get a "Season 18" table by itself on the main page if it's on the same page as Season 17. I was only trying to be helpful and did was perhaps the best idea to handle this two by having a Season 1 and 2 label of XY and you just bring me down and spit at me. Shame. - Jabrona (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jabrona: Well, to be perfectly honest here, I yielded entirely out of exhaustion. I needed to get some sleep and I wasn't in a great frame of mind to get into the details. I think whatever you are attempting should be discussed on the article's talk page since it has clearly been met with some resistance. I think the "mess" descriptions levied by @KirtZ: aren't particularly helpful and only serve to diminish the efforts of Jabrona, who is presumably editing in good faith. Since I also believe KirtZ is editing in good faith, maybe we should avoid the zingers and just start again with a clean slate without dwelling on the past, if possible. That said, I do not, however see any specific value in this edit which results in redlinks (the links are red, i.e. they do not point to existing articles). Across the entire project, we typically do not add new sections unless there is content. In the linked edit above, there isn't any content, only links to non-existent articles. More specifically, per WP:TVUPCOMING, we don't create new sections in List of episodes articles until such a time that an episode table can be created. Since there are no episode tables here, the changes don't improve our understanding of the series. Since I think I've properly explained my personal objection, if you, Jabrona, still think that some changes need to be made, you should start at Talk:List of Pokémon episodes and explain your position to people who are more familiar with the series than I. (I don't know jack shit about it! But I am a decent WikiGnome.) Regards, and peaceful editing, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already started a discussion several hours ago on the Season 17 talk page and so far only one person has answered to it. As for the redlink thing, I think I understand what you mean. But I eventually made the page so it wasn't non-existing for long. - Jabrona (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Just for your info

I noticed this new userid on one of my watched pages: I Dislike Cyphoidbomb

I've left them a note, but take action as you see fit. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The user is now indeffed. I recommend sorting through their edits to see what damage has been done. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens and Binksternet:, thanks. Likely sock of HoshiNoKaabii2000. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A.W. Hill Revision as of 05:14, 10 February 2015

Re: Don't remove cleanup templates without providing a rational explanation, or fixing the issues the templates complain of. (TW)) Okay. I thought I had provided citations for all factual assertions in the article. That's why I removed the cleanup warnings. I'll leave them alone! Ghostrider51 (talk)

@Ghostrider51: Another user has removed them with explanation, so I'm yielding. Thanks for the note. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Maelbros

Though for some reason your ping at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Maelbros didn't work I happened to find my way there anyway. I hadn't realised that these IP edits were characteristic of this user (Maelbros). Having just looked through their contribs it's precisely what our IP hopping friend has been doing. Unfortunately they seem to be getting around the edit filter recently (I can't say why for obvious reasons), but I'll be taking a fresh look at it all now that I know who the culprit is. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad you wound up there, @Samwalton9: and lo do I dislike the delicate nature of that pinger! I only mentioned Ile de France IP because they were the most recent vandal at Ella the Elephant. There are two more accounts that might warrant a look. Check out the edit history of List of programs broadcast by Teletoon:, you'll notice NEW SAJ has been blocked, and The MXE is on his way. They might be related to MadamQuerouxTheSurname. I don't know. An IP user on MXE's talk page accuses him of being 75.82.92.70, which geolocates to Beverly Hills, California, not to France, though. The interesting thing about MadamQuerouxTheSurname is that she says she's reverting (or inverting?) an edit by Maelbros, but I searched the last 1500 edits at that article and don't see Maelbros' name. Suggests knowledge of the vandal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I found a sock of ChrisRock1998

User:TheWikiRock1998, aside from having a similar username, appears to be targeting the same pages as ChrisRock1998. However, he's made only one contribution under this account, which I reverted per WP:BANREVERT, so I don't know if I should take it to WP:SPI yet. ElectricBurst_(Zaps) 01:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Reruns?

Are rerun dates needed in a "list of TV shows" article, even if they're sourced? I used to have a list of reruns here, but deleted it after thinking it was unnecessary and looked cluttered.--Phil A. Fry (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Phil A. Fry:, I don't personally see the value of including reruns in List of TV shows broadcast by XYZ network articles, if that's what you're asking, except for networks that specialize in reruns, maybe. I personally don't see the long-term value of knowing that Doug ran on Nick between YYYY-YYYY and aired reruns in 2009, 2011, 2012-2013 or whatever. My feeling is, "So what? Networks rerun crap all the time. If we were to log every date range and network on which I Love Lucy ran in reruns, we'd never get anything else done. Anyhow, you might want to float this question by WikiProject TV to get a wider range of opinions. I think it would be good to get new voices over there, as well. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I have noticed the copyright violation notice on The New Adventures of Nanoboy Page. But I managed to rewrite it by scratch and update the character info for Oscar/Nanoboy and details next to the title to avoid infringement. Agentmike41 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a grammatical improvement."

"Hi, this edit did not make the article's grammar better: "She is tough like her son, as well as has visited and cared for Eric a couple of times in the Maxum Mansion." Did someone teach you that you should always change "and" to "as well as"? That's probably not a great idea unless the resulting change makes grammatical sense. Please proofread your changes before committing them to the page.": No but they did teach me that you should not do "and," and "and,". The whole point of a comma is to avoid saying and all the time. There are some times when one has to say ", and" or "and," but it is best to avoid doing such.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Michael Demiurgos: There are other ways to improve the content without the inappropriate use of "as well as". In the first sentence, we already have "also", which makes "as well as" unnecessary. In the second sentence, "as well as has" is problematic. There is nothing wrong with "She is tough, and has visited and cared for Eric..." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I disagree with your last set of arguments: "There are other ways to improve the content without the inappropriate use of 'as well as'. In the first sentence, we already have 'also', which makes 'as well as' unnecessary. In the second sentence, 'as well as has' is problematic. There is nothing wrong with 'She is tough, and has visited and cared for Eric...'". I do not think "as well as" was used inappropriately. How is "as well as" problematic in the second sentence?

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not an English teacher, so if you need a more detailed explanation that is rooted in the nuance of English rules, you should feel free to post a question at the Misplaced Pages reference desk. However, to my experienced ear, I feel the following:

This is a long-ass sentence that can be broken up in better chunks that more clearly convey the premise of the series. It's not clear anyway what "must also contend with" means, since the prose doesn't really indicate the what the disappearance means to the subject, Eric: "While dealing with intense sidekick training, Eric must also contend with the disappearance of his superhero mentor, Maxum Man, and keep it a secret from the town of Splitsboro, his strict guardian Maxum Brain, his grumpy teacher, Professor Pamplemoose and the evil Master Xox."

Aside from being a bit of a run-on, there isn't anything inherently problematic with the use of and. That said, and assuming there are no factual inaccuracies, (I don't know the series) I imagine this prose could be broken into something like: "While dealing with intense sidekick training, Eric must learn to deal with his sense of loss at the the disappearance of his superhero mentor, Maxum Man. He must also keep the disappearance a secret from the town of Splitsboro, his guardian Maxum Brain, his teacher Professor Pamplemoose, and the evil Master Xox."

I'm sure there is a more elegant way through that as well.

With regard to the second sentence, when do we ever use "as well as has"? It's clunky. "She likes to eat sandwiches as well as has eaten donuts"? That doesn't flow at all. A simpler way through that is, "She likes to eat sandwiches and donuts" or "She likes to eat sandwiches, and she once enjoyed a donut." It simply would not make sense to replace and with "as well as". "She likes to eat sandwiches as well as once she enjoyed a donut"? What? A better way through the second sentence (again, depending on what specifically is being conveyed, and this is not clear from the current prose) might be something like, "Although she is tough like her son, she is occasionally depicted as tender, such as the few times she visited and cared for Eric in the Maxum Mansion." To your earlier comment about avoiding multiple "ands", yes, we avoid excessive ands like "I like peanuts and butter and jelly and jam and gophers." But you can write, "I like peanuts, butter, jelly, jam and gophers." And especially when things are paired like Phineas and Ferb, you can absolutely use ands. "I love bangers and mash, Phineas and Ferb, and peanut butter and jelly" without having to resort to "I love bangers and mash, Phineas as well as Ferb, and peanut butter and jelly". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing Jim'll Paint It

Sorry for undoing your edit to Jim'll Paint It. I didn't mean to bother you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.215.79 (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@178.208.215.79: Appreciate it. I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page in case you wish to participate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Totally Spies! B-stories

Thanks for setting the standard for List of Totally Spies! episodes. Subplot sounds more natural than side story and B-story. I have not seen sources from the production company that have distinctly called those stories a B-story, which is why I converted those where I saw them, otherwise I would have kept that terminology around. You might see some resistance from those who want to make the summaries more like the wikias. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: You're welcome! Keep up the good woofing. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

hard rock cafe athens

it will open new hard rock cafe at April 2015 in Athens as you can see here http://www.hardrock.com/cafes/athens/ the old shop it is closed! complete closed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante77782 (talk • contribs)

Hi @Dante77782:, I appreciate the note. References should be added to the article at the time you submit content. There's a built in tool that makes this very easy. Please see the video at Referencing for Beginners. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with Hill+Knowlton?

Hi there Cyphoidbomb, I'm trying to find editors to help improve a company article and since you're listed as a member of WikiProject Companies and have been (relatively) recently active on the page, I thought to reach out and see if you'd be interested in taking a look. The article is that for Hill+Knowlton, one of the largest and longest-established PR companies in the United States. Currently, the article's content suffers from POV issues, focusing almost entirely on a handful of more controversial clients and work, and providing little to no information about the company's history and overall operations. Specifically: the article's History section is just five sentences long, and the only other section in the article is a Controversies section.

If you'd be interested to take a look, I've proposed a new draft written from secondary sources on the Talk page. To be clear, I'm working as a consultant to H+K and won't make any edits to the article myself. Instead, I'm hoping to find editors like yourself to review the draft and move the content into the live article if it looks good. If you'd be able to help, please take a look at the full request on the Talk page. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions at all. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for this edit. I accidentally reverted 2 out of 5 edits in a row, instead of reverting to the last good version. @NDKilla^^^ 13:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@NDKilla: Happy to help! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Assistance needed

You are cordially invited to assist TheMeaningOfBlah in constructing a draft for a restaurant article, which can be found here. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish...

...that I hadn't edited Misplaced Pages so much. After 118,000 edits I sometime get "vibes" from editors, but then I can't figure out why. Sometimes these vibes come from a single post after a series of others. I'm getting one now from an editor at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Television. He reminds me of an editor I've had dealings with in the not-too distant past (although in reality it could be 3 years ago) and who turned out to either be a sockpuppet or got blocked. I'll be damned if I can find the relevant posts though. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: It's Dogmaticeclectic reincarnated as three disclosed accounts that have been in existence for years. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'm not doubthing you, it's just that, rather ironically, just after I posted here I was looking for the discussion about WP:TVINTL and "English-speaking" and ended up at his new talk page. Co-inky-dink or not? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: User:Mdrnpndr discloses secondary and tertiary accounts User:Mdrn (since 2008), and User:Pndr (since 2010). Also, this. User:Pndrmdrn appears to be yet another one. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all three accounts are disclosed on my user page... oh, and if you really want a trip down memory lane, how about the fact that it was User:AussieLegend who reported one of the two older accounts for removing fair use images that I had uploaded a few years back? Good times, good times! Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure I said that three are disclosed. The fourth account doesn't appear to be disclosed on all the accounts. When you started editing Microsoft articles in August 2014, had your topic ban ended by that point? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think I'm that stupid? Also, WP:HOUNDING much? (I don't recall ever seeing you edit Microsoft-related articles...) And the fourth account is the one I'm using right now, obviously. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, so tempting to reply to the baited rhetorical question, but I'll pass. Your "hounding" inference is cute, but absurd. Awareness of another editor's previous sanctions doesn't imply hounding, and neither would asking questions about a previous, publicly discussed topic ban. But anyhow, not everything's about me me me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, since you were nice by avoiding the temptation to insult, I'll be nice by reminding you that you should remember to click on the links at the bottom of user contribution and log pages when needed; otherwise, you may end up with multiple date mistakes, as you have in this section. Mdrnpndr (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to accept that correction. Definitely sloppy and poorly referenced on my part. Mdrn seems to date back to 2006, Pndr seems to date back to 2010, Pndrmdrn dates back to circa 2012, as does Mdrnpndr (give or take a database loss or two in the late oughts and/or other mistakes of mine.) Out of curiosity, and of course I don't actually expect you to answer, (although I am inviting you to answer on the off-chance that maybe we could better understand where you're coming from) was there a particular incident or string of incidents that inspired you to pursue community changes with what looks to me like a giant chip on your shoulder? Though you could infer that as an insult, I don't think it's indemonstrable that your approach to community editing has been less on community and more on exasperation, exclamation, and passive-aggressive templating. But to maybe pave the path with a few grains of niceness, I definitely don't think you're stupid (I actually consider you extraordinarily sharp) but in my experience, your social interaction is needlessly prickly, which is something no average editor would respond well to. If you can enlighten, I'd be interested in listening, otherwise, I'll accept the implicit "I should go fuck myself". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that – it's very rare that I get a positive message around here. And my apologies for the above abrasiveness – after jumping from page to page arguing with a certain user I wasn't exactly in the best mood for responding to your comment regarding the topic ban. (Note though that you missed the other date error – I actually resumed editing Microsoft-related topics much sooner after my topic ban expired than the date you mentioned.)

I do indeed feel wronged by the community. I continue to feel that all of my past blocks were at least partly unjustified – if not entirely in terms of their existence (though some certainly were) then in their ridiculous duration compared to those given to other users. The topic ban, of course, was nothing more than community opinion getting out of hand – there was nothing in the so-called rationale for that that couldn't have been resolved simply by discussing it with me, as I had already shown a willingness to correct the few actual mistakes I may have made (relating to edit warring in particular). Yet this is not the reason you're looking for.

The fact is – and I do feel somewhat uneasy saying this even here given the ridiculous rationales for my past sanctions – that there are certain users here who don't simply ignore WP:OWN; no, they seem to have misread it as saying the exact opposite of what it does. It is almost exclusively my repeated conflicts with these users – and of course their legions of sympathizers, including a number of administrators – that causes the traits that you mentioned observing (not to mention that led to my sanctions). I don't think this problem is solvable unless I simply ignore fundamental issues with the pages I edit and focus on the small stuff like many others seem to have (although even that small stuff is often reverted by said users), or unless WP:ARBCOM itself gets involved – though I've been unwilling to request that latter step thus far.

(Hmmm... actually writing this stuff down already makes me feel better. I guess I should thank you for that too...) Mdrnpndr (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm extraordinarily sleepy, so I can't invest time in replying now, but my hope is to reply tomorrow (and I say this genuinely) with a mindset that is geared toward peacefully asking you back into the community. I've been tempted numerous times to respond to your pissy templates with more pissy templates, (and I'm being honest here) but I resisted the urge for a number of reasons. Let's talk tomorrow. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Email Message

Neutral notice

There is an RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television#Request_for_Comment whose outcome could affect WikiProject Film. You may wish to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Thanks for the heads up. Came across the edits patrolling Recent Pages. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 15:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Since you've had multiple interactions with this user: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Editor605_is_NOTHERE.2C_long_term_abuse EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback|tad102

Half of the internet's legitimete data is based on 'user' contributions, and ImDb is a widely recognised and respected website, linking it to virtually every movie/tv show's, etc description page so that argument is rather shallow! You are also absolutley right, wikipedia is a community based site so continually acting as some self appointed judge and removing people's posts/edits is hardly the spirit of the site! (A further user edited my revision without removing it entirely thereby excepting the source!) Your intial revisions I understand and agree with, however I reverted your last edit as I had followed your intial advise and sourced the information therfore your edit has no merit. Kindly stop being so destructive of other people's work as this harms the very basis on how this website was created and is managed. If you were an administrator or creator of this site you may have more say in such matters but you are a contributor only, just as I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tad102 (talk • contribs)

@Tad102: I'm not interested in getting into an esoteric discussion about half of the internet's data. Misplaced Pages has specific guidelines for what constitutes a satisfactory source per community standards. As I have already explained, IMDb is not considered a reliable source by the very specific Misplaced Pages standards detailed here. We also do not care for speculation or original research to be included, which is what you are introducing when you repeatedly submit (without providing a reliable source) that production on Kung Fu Panda has ended. And yes, while we are all contributors here, if your (or my) contributions are problematic because they contravene existing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, then they should be changed. Obviously you have good intentions. These changes happen all the time and it's nothing personal. Not sure what you mean by "a further user edited my revision without removing it entirely." If you mean this edit, that was performed by me. I removed the IMDb reference as unsuitable (because it doesn't meet WP:RS) and also as unnecessary because we can directly observe in the episode list that ten episodes have not aired. I did, however, again delete the unsourced statement about production for reasons that should be obvious by now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)