User talk:KatnissEverdeen/Archive 2015

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2013

Archive 2014

Archive 2015

Your revert at Spindle neuron

Hello KatnissEverdeen, welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed the revert you did at Spindle neuron, and I'm messaging you to say that I don't think you were right in reverting that edit. The first time that IP user edited, they removed the content without an edit summary or any explanation, so it was fine to revert them as User:FourViolas did. The second time, however, the IP gave a valid reason for removing the text (that it's inaccurate). Since they now have stated their reason, you should not revert them simply because they're removing content. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Howicus! Thanks for pointing out my mistake, looking back on my edit now I see that the page does look better now with the IP's edit (the first time I read over it, it appeared that the info shouldn't have been removed). Sorry again about the mistake, as you may have seen I'm a newbie (this is only my 3rd day) on Wikipedia, so I'm still getting used to some of the policies and making a few mistakes. Thanks again for pointing that out! KatnissEverdeen (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit tip

Hi Katniss, I saw your reversions at Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!. Here's an unsolicited tip: Rather than make multiple undos, a faster way to revert numerous changes is to find the last good version, for example this version which is just before IP 71.29.121.228 started editing. Click Edit at the top of the page. A new window will open up and you'll see the notice "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 12:28, January 22, 2015" at the top of the page in pink. Add an edit summary like, "Unsourced edits from IP 71.29.121.228. Reverting to last known good version" and then click save. You'll then restore the article to the last known good version. Obviously, if it's practical to only revert the unsourced content, that is preferable over performing a "blanket revert", which could undo some of their constructive changes. Anyhow, hope that helps save you some time. Happy editing, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Cyphoidbomb! KatnissEverdeen (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Shawna welsh

Heya Katniss, just wanted to point out that on the linked article, the copyright violation is the prose itself, not the fake picture. Click the link and compare the "early life" and "career" sections with the link--they're the exact same. All of that material is claimed by this Mediabang site, so we can't use it. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nolelover, Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for letting me know! Katniss♥ 00:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries! If you ever have the time and can't sleep, I highly recommend the policy page about copyright. It's a important part of the overall WP foundation, and it's good to familiarize yourself with. In a nutshell, we can only use content that is completely free. Cheers, Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Copy-paste is also a much simpler read on the same topic, since it is indeed pretty terrifying to look at, haha. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing information from articles because of missing graphics

Please don't remove information from articles because there are missing graphics. Specifically, you removed two former highways from List of U.S. Highways in Indiana just because the graphics are missing. That's very not cool. You deleted useful information just because of the missing graphic, and I believe that would fall under the "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" idiom. The same would apply with the infoboxes you removed from Malaysian highway articles. The templates put these articles into tracking categories and someone will create the missing graphics in due course, but your actions removed useful information and removed the articles from the tracking categories so no one would know to create the missing graphics. Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Imazdi1979, sorry, in [1] it was showing that the whole infobox file was the issue, but looking back at the edits now I see that it was only the graphic. Again, sorry about the mix up and thanks so much for correcting the issue. Katniss♥ 23:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi KatnissEverdeen. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Katniss♥ 01:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit

I'm sorry about my recent edit to Girl Meets World. I used the wrong source and it did not back up my edit. Sorry! -107.188.28.7

Hi, No worries, everyone makes mistakes! Also, just a heads up, I reverted your last edit again because it still didn't cite the correct information. If you need help at all citing sources, WP:SOURCE is a great guide to what is and is not a correct source. Thanks for the apology, and feel free to contact me on my talk page if you need any more help. Cheers Katniss♥ 22:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

pending changes reviewer user right

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, 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. KrakatoaKatie 23:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing proper correction of language

Hi, was just wondering if you undid all the editing I applied to the Cristiano Araujo article. I fixed and made sure the article contained proper English that would be legible to someone who's first language happens to be American English. So I do not understand why everything is suddenly not there, but I'd appreciate the feedback! Thanks Sdel1628 (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Sdel1628, First looking at your edit summary that said "typo added" it appeared that you were deliberately adding typos into the article, but looking again it looks like you were just trying to fix typos/English language errors. I've gone ahead and changed everything back to how you had it. Sorry about the misunderstanding! Cheers Isabelle♥ 15:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's okay! I'm new to wiki, so I didn't know how to word what I meant! Plus working on mobile makes it a bit harder to navigate. But thanks for understanding! And now I know better too! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdel1628 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of image of Robert Shaw on sax on page Robert Shaw (poet)

The caption was literal and serious. Did you think it was instead a failed-funny-attempt. It wasn't. But anyway the upload of the image had - it seems - failed. It still exists in Wikimedia Commons so will be trying again. But there is not much point if you have taken exception to it or its literal caption.I was curious. S2308rasc S2308rasc (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi S2308rasc, No, I didn't think it was a "joke" attempt, I patrol Category:Articles with missing files which was showing that the image was broken. Leaving the caption there without the image would have wrecked the formatting of the whole page, so that's why both the caption/image were deleted. Cheers Isabelle♥ 17:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:Line breaks in the middle of an episode title

Hi, IsabelleSummer. I've read your message. I've insert the line breaks the space of an episode's table (title, writers, etc.), can easily make measurements in a fast, neat and perfect mode. Luigi1090 (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luigi, I understand what you're trying to do, but like Cyphoidbomb mentioned on your talk page, the result of what you're doing isn't constructive to the article. If it's causing problems for you, please open a discussion on the article's talk page so we can discuss solutions. Thanks Isabelle♥ 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Simpsons unaired episodes

I cited WP:UGC in reference to the use of other wikis, not twitter. The referenced tweet [2] didn't actually show anything substantial, only a date. I've checked zap2it, tvguide, and futoncritic. There are no listings past Halloween. If you have a source as to what airs and when, they can be put back in. Until then, it's unsupported. There is also no reason to list unscheduled episodes when there's no guarantee they will air this season. Treehouse of Horror XXVII is a prime example. That one is NEXT year. Ryan8374 (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've replied to this here. Cheers Isabelle♥ 22:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio catches

Hi IsabelleSummer, thank you very much for looking into and removing these copyright violations. Very much appreciated! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, no problem! Cheers Isabelle♥ 21:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Scooby

Hi Isabelle, could I trouble you to please look at your Be Cool, Scooby Doo! edits again? They don't seem to match this reference. Some of the dates are off. I don't have time to do it myself at the moment, and I don't wan't to forget. Thanks much, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, what happened is the reference you cited is actually CN's original schedule, but that has been changed as of Tuesday morning. This reference is the correct schedule. LocateTV and TV Guide also cite the correct schedule. I'll try to look for more references backing this up if you'd like, but right now all I've found are these three and Scooby fan sites. Cheers Isabelle♥ 23:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Hi Isabelle, with regard to this revert, I'm a little confused by your edit summary, so let me give you a bit of background: I did a mass rollback of all of that user's edits after I blocked them, because they were being disruptive across a number of articles, and I can't be bothered to sift through a lot of garbage to find a jewel. I very rarely revert without an explanation, so when this happens (with me, anyway) it's a mass rollback. That said, your summary is confusing: that wasn't vandalism, that was a punctuation error. I get that it was a punctuation error, (or possibly deliberate punctuation vandalism) but why would restoring the punctuation error bring the article back to an acceptable state? The theme song for the movie is What's New, Scooby-Doo?. With the exception of the interrobang, (?!) which is not appropriate tone for an encyclopedia, we virtually never end a sentence in multiple punctuation marks. Could I trouble you to please explain your position? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, I've reverted myself as I don't think it's worth the effort to try to argue about why I added a single period to an article. If you're really concerned about why I did it, the question mark is part of the show title, so I thought it would be more appropriate for it to end in a period since the sentence is not intended to ask a question. I think I'm going to be taking a long WikiBreak, as I'm feeling a bit annoyed that my every contribution (or at least that's how it feels right now for me) is now being scrutinized/questioned because of the incident with the IP last week. I'm only editing Wikipedia because I enjoy it, but having to explain my every edit isn't at all enjoyable for me. Nothing against you at all, but I just need some time away to think about if I really want to be on here anymore (due to this and a few other incidents with other editors in the past month). Thank you. Isabelle♥ 17:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I just want to say that I'm extremely sorry for my incredibly rude reply to you and poor edit summary. I honestly can't believe I even wrote that. I realize this isn't an excuse, but I've unfortunately been under a lot of stress lately due to a bunch of personal issues, including a close relative in the hospital, and I'm afraid my current over-emotional state got the best of me. I may have to still consider retiring from Wikipedia, since my good editor reputation has probably been ruined for being outright disrespectful to an administrator, but I wanted to say how sorry I am for acting like a complete bitch to you. Isabelle♥ 14:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your heartfelt apology (never an easy thing to do regardless of scenario) but I don't know that you owe me one, and I certainly didn't think anything negative of you, so you have nothing to worry about! From my perspective, you are a good editor who perhaps finds Wikipedia's intricacies a bit overwhelming. That's completely normal, and some people respond better to it than others. And frankly, some people respond to it a lot worse, so you're already ahead of the game! I certainly didn't mean to over critique you, and the reason why I asked about the Scooby Doo punctuation thing instead of reverting is because I didn't want to discourage you, rather, I thought it best to communicate in case you had a stronger perspective than I. After I read your note, I went to the Reference Desk to see if I was making a mistake, and someone pointed out that the eagle-eyed Cyphoidbomb had missed a detail: we wouldn't use italics for a song title, we'd use quotation marks. Gah! So, nobody's perf.

Anyhow, I'm sorry about your relative—I hope they do well in their circumstances, and I hope the same for you. Please don't worry about this trivial matter, and when you're ready to edit again, you'll have no enemy with me. Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I'm really glad to hear there are no hard feelings. I don't think you were over-critiquing me at all. Like I said with the stressful personal issues I've been having these last few weeks, it seemed like a big deal to me when I first read it, but in normal circumstances it wouldn't have even been an issue for me. So feel free to contact me if you notice any mistakes I've made after I do begin editing again (will probably be at least a week if not longer), normally I'm happy to respond and explain my position on any edit, no matter how small the issue may be. Thanks for being so understanding! Isabelle♥ 23:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Simpsons Season 28

How is it too soon to create this page when the season is already in production? Bwisey (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bwisey, the reason it's too soon is that we really know nothing about the season yet other than it's in production. Wikipedia's policies on notability and and WP:TOOSOON both do a nice job of explaining when it's appropriate to create articles. Usually we don't create articles until we know about episode titles, season highlights or other general information on the season - which usually isn't announced until May. All we know is that they're currently working on Season 28, and that could easily be stated on the List of The Simpsons episodes or series page without creating a whole separate article at this point. Hope this helps explain better. Katniss♥ 21:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Bwisey (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Saved By The Bell: The New Class updated info by wikicavsteel is not considered vandalism.

Hello:

Whatever I just posted recently in Saved BY The Bell: The New Class page is NEVER considered vandalism at all. I am trying to help both actor Dustin Diamond and his Screech role to have a proper ending on the The New Class series finale.

Dustin and his Screech role came to The New Class to 1.) get both relief than difficultly from The New Class students and 2.) recieve a new program to get help. I Know Bayside High is very difficult high school for Screech, and I know Screech irritated more on Belding than the other new class students. Belding moving to a new college as a dean in a hurry and not mentioning how long he will be, isn't right. Even not mentioning Screech's future at the end isn't right either.

So the only way to make both Dustin, in real life, and Screech to feel relieved completely is to have proper ending with a proper departure from Bayside High at the end:

"Screech transferring to a new public high school (which is less difficult than both Bayside High and Valley High) and become a principal there. In that new less-difficult public high school, principal Screech will create a new program for all types of helpless people and members involved there."

Meanwhile, Belding's position as the dean in his new college may not last beyond one year.

I understand what's wrong with Dustin, in real life, right now, but he may not last being a trashy loser for the rest of his life. Dustin should be now getting complete private emergency help from all both doctors and mental therapists lately.

If that Screech's proper ending, whatever I mentioned at the beginning of this message, got brought up back in 2000, then Dustin, in real life, would not end up being a trashy loser, not end up in jail recently and not get this type of private emergency help.

You may not think this message doesnt' make sense right now, but that doesn't mean you cannot ignore it yet, because, later on, it will make sense along the way.

Wikipedia is a collection of facts only, so even if the edit was made in good faith, we still can't include it on Wikipedia because it never actually happened in the show. Claims like this need to be properly referenced per WP:SOURCE, which your claim was not. Katniss♥ 14:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Broadcast vs. online release

Hi Kat, re: this edit, while the Template:Infobox television default embedded note reads "Value is incremented when new episodes air.", the instructions further down read, "The number of episodes released. This parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production." The spirit of the guideline is that we don't want people adding "26" to the field once a new season begins, rather, we want to increment as they are released. I don't think that quibbling about over-the-air broadcasts vs. online release is really worth the time. Just a thought. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, Sorry about the trouble, I took the note to mean "aired on TV" and didn't realize that could include online-only releases. One question though, would that still apply if the online release was only for a day? The episode was removed from iTunes and Amazon the next morning after it was posted and has been unavailable (except through bootleg sites) ever since. Thanks Katniss♥ 23:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that raises issues of verifiability. If it can't be verified down the line, then the data does become a bit flimsy. Might make sense to try to get an Archive.org snapshot in this case, but that's not always easy to do. You might consider running this past WikiProject Television to see if some of the regulars have better ideas about this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb Thanks for the reply. I think I'll post on the show talk page first just to try to get the opinions of other people who may be more familiar with the show first on how to handle this. I wasn't the person who added that episode (if it were up to me I wouldn't have added the episode quite yet because of the verifying / sourcing issues that you brought up), but I saw the episode before they removed it so I wasn't going to make a huge deal of it being in the chart. I don't think there'll be any issues with verifying it down the line, this has happened before with other Cartoon Network shows, and the episodes are usually aired on TV within a few months. Thanks for the help and suggestions :) Katniss♥ 03:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)