Jump to content

User talk:AdamDeanHall/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Hey There,

I notice you have been warned previously about using edit summaries. Which I have noticed that you now do. But I have noticed that a couple of times you have been very short and abrupt with your summaries. In particular here where you stated that "no canadian stations were allowed" which they are, but please try and be more considerate with your summaries as it could of been taken the wrong way. Especially when you didn't cite a reason as to why Canadian stations were not allowed.

For your reference, they are allowed, if they are the station that first aired the episode. Which you should of added into the edit summary to further explain the changes, especially for new users who may not of understood the reasons for the changes. Happy Editing. See you around. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 15:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I was coming here for just this reason so i am appending to the existing section. The heading in the episode list is "Original air date", Arrow is actually made in Canada, and CTV did show an episode a day earlier than The CW. If Arrow were shown on ITV3 in England prior to being on The CW those broadcasts would be just as relevant. Episode lists include first domestic broadcast based on the assumption the domestic broadcast is not preceded by any international broadcasts but when there are early broadcasts in places like Canada, Ireland, Australia, etc. they are noted with the date of domestic broadcast following it. Look at Sanctuary, where a few episodes were shown on ITV prior to being shown in Canada or the USA. Or season 4 of The Mentalist wherein two episodes were shown earlier in Canada and in a different sequence. Or Human Target where in the first season episodes were regularly shown in Canada before they were shown in the USA. The generally accepted alternative is to make the heading national instead of original, meaning "Canada air date" or "U.S. air date" instead of "Original air date". If you like that you should ask about it since there are a lot of people contributing to the Arrow article.
Your edit summary "No Canadian stations allowed." is simply just not true and speaks to your dictating control. It isn't really good. From what i have seen you seem to have a bit of a grudge against Canada or/and are very pro-American. When you created the article for Rookie Blue you called it an American show. [1] When you told me the other week that Beauty & The Beast isn't filmed in Toronto [2] i really couldn't believe what i was seeing. There existed at the time plenty of information regarding Rookie Blue (then Copper) being a Canadian show and with Beauty & The Beast i had the reference included from the Toronto Film Commission and you summarily dismissed it. You seem to insist upon omitting things you don't like and your edit summaries are rather bold (some might say aggressive). Your edit summaries on Arrow "The CW doesn't allow ratings." and "From now on, no more bogus ratings. Only final ratings are permitted. Do you understand?" and "Because every bogus rating I read on the TV by the Numbers website always begins with "TV Ratings Monday-Sunday"." and "If I were you, mister, I'd wait until the final ratings show up." speak to both your need to control and your lack of understanding about that which you are dealing with. Fast National (aka Overnight) ratings aren't bogus and neither are Live+7 DVR. There are many types of ratings and more demographics than just adults 18-49. I can appreciate a passionate stance but as someone once said in my presence, "first be right then be easy to deal with, if possible, but always in that order". delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 08:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I would like to consider WP:DR on this user if his behavior persists. His editing consistently appears to be tendentious, and his edit summaries lack any real justification as to why he reverted my edit (see one section below). Also, from reading your response, Deliriousandlost, I didn't know that AdamDeanHall also has this "Canada sucks!" mentality. From our contributions, AdamDeanHall and I are clearly both fans of the Transformers franchise. Although most iterations are American produced, one of its iterations is a Canadian produced television series Beast Wars. Seeing from its history, maybe his distaste for anything Canadian explains why he has never yet made an edit to the Beast Wars article at all. :P 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Transformers: Prime episodes

You provided no justification as to why you reverted my edit. Your revision contains incomplete edit summaries. If you're trying to remove spoilers, Wikipedia policy does not condone that. 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

1988–89 United States network television schedule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Hunter (TV series), Coming of Age (TV series), Beauty and the Beast (TV series), In the Heat of the Night, West 57th, Beyond Tomorrow, High Risk, Almost Grown, Police Story and The Reporters
1981–82 United States network television schedule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to WGA, Flamingo Road, Strike Force, Open All Night and Private Benjamin
1984–85 United States network television schedule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Hunter (TV series), Cover Up, Partners in Crime (TV series) and Knight Rider
1985–86 United States network television schedule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Hunter (TV series), Crazy Like a Fox, Knight Rider and Lime Street
1982–83 United States network television schedule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Knight Rider, Gavilan and Private Benjamin
1986–87 United States network television schedule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Hunter (TV series), Heart of the City and Our World
1987–88 United States network television schedule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Hunter (TV series), Beauty and the Beast (TV series) and Our House (TV series)
1989–90 United States network television schedule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Hunter (TV series), Beyond Tomorrow and The Reporters
1983–84 United States network television schedule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Knight Rider and Woman to Woman
1979–80 United States network television schedule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Struck by Lightning
1980–81 United States network television schedule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ladies Man (TV series)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Transformers: Prime episodes

If my revision introduces a small error (i.e. the season 3 end date), it is curteous to manually make the minor fix yourself. Or at least notify me on my talk page. Don't revert my entire revision just to remove that small error. 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Maryoku Yummy is unfinished!

I really want you to finish Maryoku Yummy! Can you please do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Woo-Ming (talk • contribs) 17:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: I did not screw up the TV by the Numbers article!

Hello, AdamDeanHall. You have new messages at CAWylie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Smooth Jazz Chicago

The article Smooth Jazz Chicago has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claims of notability

While all 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. Noiratsi (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 666 Park Avenue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DVR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of LucasFilm

Hi, Thank you for your help in reverting uninformed Wikipedian edits who are changing the ownership from George Lucas to The Walt Disney Company. I am going to put in a request for Semi-Protection and I'd appreciate if you could support me on this so it would make it easier to stop having to keep reverting over and over again until the actual merger is consummated. Thanks. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

tv.com

I am guessing that you are not aware of the fact that template:tv.com is slated for deletion, so your continuous reversion of the bot trying to orphan the template are not helpful. Frietjes (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Maryoku Yummy is unfinished!

Maryoku Yummy is unfinished!
I really want you to finish Maryoku Yummy! Can you please do that? Ryan Woo-Ming (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Damage

It's pretty hostile to call my edits "damage". Raise it on Talk:Tron: Uprising if you have issues with my edits. Barsoomian (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Last Resort (U.S. TV series)

Regarding this edit, the source presents the title as "Last Resort: Controlled Flight Into Terrain", not "Last Resort: "Controlled Flight Into Terrain"".[3] Citation titles should be as presented by the source, so please do not change this again. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town

User:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:URL

Please don't undo my usage of Template:URL in the infobox of Al Jazeera America. Template:URL is benefitial because it adds useful microformat data to the link code. The template is also recommended to be used on infoboxes throughout Wikipedia, and is standard on WP:featured articles. Your usage is recommended nowhere. Lastly, {{url|www.aljazeera.com/america}} is the original formatting on the article, so it was fine to change it once, but if an editor changes it back to its original format, then you can't change it again, especially not with giving only the explanation of "Your format was good; mine is better." You'll have to bring it up in the article talk page instead. Trinitresque (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

http usage in Template:URL

You're not getting it. Of course, in normal HTML (e.g. <a href="http://www...>) and in normal external linking in wiki markup (e.g. [http://www... Link title]), you would indeed have to have the http:// before a url. But not in Template:URL! Because it adds it on by itself! The template was written specifically to be able to do this. How many times do I have to explain this? So from now on, please don't change it to http://, when without it is the original formatting, and the formatting that is the primary recommendation on the template documentation for Template:URL and for Infobox templates without giving an actual reason. In fact, how about this: don't change it, until you can change the established consensus on Wikipedia that http:// is needed for the URL template. Until then, I think that any change you make to add http:// would be disruptive editing. Trinitresque (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is over cases where the original usage is without http. Either way, Template:URL sans http is the standard on template documentation. Trinitresque (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Trivialist is correct, the template works either way and this is explained in the template documentation, which I suspect AdamDeanHall hasn't bothered reading, based on his edits at Al Jazeera America. The original version of the article had a link to the homepage in the format {{url|http://www.aljazeera.com/america}}, so this edit, made to "fix" the "homepage section of the inbox" was unnecessary. That said, Trinitresque's argument that "the issue here is over cases where the original usage is without http" isn't actually the case as this article originally included the "http://". However, that doesn't justify this edit. Regarding the claim that "Template:URL sans http is the standard on template documentation" is not actually true. In fact, {{Infobox television channel}} specifies a bare url, not use of {{URL}}. This should probably be fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
My mistake. I wrote the original article, and intended not to use http, but forgot to remove it. Less used infobox templates like Infobox television channel tend to fall behind more common infobox templates in standards. All infoboxes used to use bare urls, but the most common infoboxes such as Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox organzation, and Template:Infobox musical artist all use Template:URL because it adds benefitial microformats that bare URLs cannot. Template:Infobox television channel does not specify one format over another in the "Usage" section, though there is a bare URL in the example. I'll bring it up on talk pages later to switch to Template:URL in less used infoboxes.
Now, I did say that regardless of original usage, "Template:URL sans http is the standard on template documentation". That's undeniably true. Example URLs without http is the primary usage in the Template:URL documentation. And take a look at the usage guidelines and examples in template documentation in Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox organzation, and Template:Infobox musical artist. NONE of them use http://! That's the bigger point. The standard is without http.
And on a side note, AdamDeanHall kept on adding http to the URL template, because according to him, "All websites need to start with the http:// symbol.", not because he thinks both ways work but one is better. Trinitresque (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I added a section to Template talk:Infobox television channel here if anyone is interested in commenting. Trinitresque (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Tron reverts

You might want to consider your revert here; calling my edit - which rewrote, trimmed by two-thirds (my edit was 23 words, and your preferred version is 68 words) and kept the summary brief and concise. My version avoids bloat, original research and potential copyright violations. Yours invites it. I invite you to self-revert so that I do not have to embarrass you and undo your edit. If you have serious problems with the removal of your version, you should use the talk page to discuss them. In the future, when you are reverted once, you should see that as an invitation to initiate dialogue, which does not entail inflammatory edit summaries. I will wait a short time before undoing your edit, so as to give you ample opportunity to do so yourself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If, in the future, you think I've screwed up, drop me a line, or initiate discussion in article discussion. I am just as wrong sometimes as anyone and am open to different ways of accomplishing a task. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverting

Before reverting, please check what you're reverting. As stated in two episode summaries at Tron: Uprising,[4][5] and on the talk page,[6] where you haven't participated in the discussion, the episode summary for Scars, Part 1 is a copyvio. Your most recent edit at the article restored a copyvio that I've now had to remove three times, which is rather ironic given your edit summary, "Copying episode summaries from other websites will not be tolerated."[7] --AussieLegend (✉) 03:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Your summary for this edit was "I KNOW Shockwave is returning; I don't need to be reminded of that!" Wikipedia articles are intended for a broad audience, and not everyone may be as knowledgable about a subject as you are.

Also, any time you feel the need to use exclamation marks in your edit summary, you should probably take a break and try to stay cool Trivialist (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re Tron reverts, PART II

Apparently, you overlooked the part in the earlier section on this page wherein I stated - without any sort of ambiguity I thought - that if you developed some sort of dissent with an edit I made, you were to utilize the article discussion page. Of course I am going to revert out the non-notable, non-reliable reference. If you had taken the time to actually READ the edit summary, you would not have wasted a moment's time performing a revert which is quite simply going to be undone.
I will say it again: use the talk page to convince the rest of us that the source is reliable and notable. "Truth is not a litmus for inclusion," so any arguments based in that are going to fail, and fail hugely. You have pressed me on at least one prior occasion to make me issue a warning to you about edit-warring. If you revert again, I will report you to the appropriate noticeboard. So, use the talk page and argue for your pet opinion, or await a better citation. If the show is indeed canceled, a better citation will happen along eventually. We are NOT in a hurry. Consider your next actions very carefully, Adam. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

See latest discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tron:_Uprising I think that the sources I cited are quite reliable. But another editor has an entrenched position. 202.81.242.188 (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You had best hope he doesn't do so at your request, anon202. Check out our take on your tactics. It can likely get you blocked before you start making contributions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Bite me. 202.81.242.188 (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Dude, are you trying to get indef blocked?? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to tell you to fuck off. Informing an editor of developments in a discussion he was already a part of is not "meatpuppetry". For you to use that term is clearly an attempt at intimidation. So if you complain about my words here, I hope an admin will look at your abusive behavior. 202.81.242.188 (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Please note that language of that sort is not not only unacceptable but is also not very Civil. The way you worded that comment most certainly does sound like you are canvassing support for your views and that is not an appropriate way to build a consensus and is not appropriate per WP:POV. MisterShiney ✉ 13:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
"canvassing", possibly. Though since AdamDeanHall was already in the discussion, before he was also threatened by Jack Sebastian, I find it hard to see how it's an offence to update him on my response. But I was charged with "meatpuppetry". And threatened by Jack Sebastian with being blocked as a result. Was that "appropriate"? Was that "acceptable". "Civil"? 202.81.242.188 (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
My friend, you haven't been threatened at all. I simply pointed out what the end result of your behavior would be; I come here to work with others, and have very little patience for people treating the Wiki like some base forum where insults are traded like Pokemon cards. And quite frankly, had not Mister Shiney come to your rescue (and trust me, that is precisely what he did here), your next stop would have been AN/I. I am not concerned that my behavior is abusive. Slightly intolerant, maybe. Willing to meet incivility with trout-slappery, absolutely. Was I too hasty in accusing you of meatpuppetry? Yes. What you were doing was canvassing (ie. seeking comrades in a fight with me); if your arguments cannot stand on your own, you have no business seeking to create a hullaballoo over it.
As I pointed out before, feel free to ask around, and see if my interpretation of policy and sourcing is wrong. You seem more interested in complaining about me than doing that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, I am sorry for filling up your page with this, Adam. Had the anon bothered to create an account, I'd be able to post in his user-talk space. Feel free to delete this section at your whim, should you so desire. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Adam, Please do not delete official episode descriptions that are provided by Disney to be used specifically to provide accurate descriptions of all episodes. Just as there is a an official writer and director for each episode, there is an official episode description as well. . - savethegrid (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, they are copy vios and as such have no place on wikipedia. MisterShiney ✉ 19:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

666 Park Avenue

You need to stop reverting edits made by myself and others simply because you feel the information is not valid or that the source isn't credible. You keep making up your own rules, specifically "No foreign airdates allowed" and "Facebook is not a reliable source", despite the fact the are well established presidents on Wikipedia that contradict what you're saying. Seeing past edits you've made to the article, other editors have let you get away with this, but I won't.

If you want to see these pieces of information/sources removed, then YOU need to justify it on the talk page about why it shouldn't be there and get consensus from other editors - not the other way around. Until then, I will keep hitting revert on your edits, which will eventually lead to the page getting locked and then the page will quickly get out of date because you refuse to pull your head in.

- Wattlebird (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Having higher rank doesn't mean edits by those who don't have it must be reverted. My information isn't just another Facebook gossip - it is stated on the official page of an Australian channel. Why I think it's official? 'Cause link to that page is given on Fthe official website of channel Fox8. Gevorg89 (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Syfy

Why did you remove all the archived references with this edit? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2000 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2000 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/Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2000 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 template from the top of the article.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dates

Please stop replacing prose dates with {{Start date}}.[8] It's meant for use in tables, not for general use in the prose and adding it to hidden comments is pointless. Please also don't arbitrarily change date formats, as you did at Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.[9] The predominant date format for references in the article is YYYY-MM-DD and dates should remain in that format per WP:DATERET, and please review WP:DEADLINK to see how to proprely handle dead links. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note, I said above that {{Start date}} is meant for use in tables, not for general use in the prose. It shouldn't be removed from tables, as you did here. I also told you to retain the predominant date format, yet you completely changed the dates in WWE SmackDown, as well as arbitrarily removing the {{As of}} template.[10] --AussieLegend (✉) 03:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Blu-ray regions

Regions 1, 2 & 4 are NOT Blu-ray regions. Blu-ray regions are A, B and C. This edit was therefore inappropriate as there are no Blu-ray regions in the table. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Facebook as a ref

Stop making up your own rules saying Facebook cannot be used as a source in articles. It is fine, provided that the information is posted on an official page for a person/company as this is basically the same as them announcing the information via other formats - ie on their official websites, press releases etc. Wikipedia:Reliable sources even says that as long as authenticity is proven, it's fine.

Also, the dates you keep reverting back to are wrong, since the episodes haven't aired in AU at all, since you're using an outdated source. - Wattlebird (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wattlebird is correct. Please see WP:FACEBOOK. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

See note

at Talk:666 Park Avenue#Edit warring. Steven Walling • talk 04:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Official Facebook pages are OK

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AdamDeanHall reported by User:MyLeftNut (Result: ). There is a risk that you may be blocked for 3RR violation, but your agreement to wait for consensus about Facebook might be taken into account. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You've been warned per the result of the 3RR complaint at WP:AN3#User:AdamDeanHall reported by User:MyLeftNut (Result: Warned). You should not keep removing links without getting consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

More info

More info
I want more info on the episodes on Maryoku Yummy, please! Ryan Woo-Ming (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:AdamDeanHall/Fusion (TV network) has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fusion (TV network), this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Please don't restore edits that have been legitimately reverted by other editors. An edit you made yesterday was reverted with an appropriate edit summary,[11] yet you've restored the changes without explanation.[12] You did provide an edit summary, but it had nothing to do with those changes. Instead, you restored a slash that I had earlier removed, citing MOS:SLASH.[13] You have been editing Wikipedia long enough now that you should have a basic grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, yet, even after nearly 40,000 edits you are constantly being reverted by other editors. You really need to start taking a lot more care with your editing and start checking edit histories. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

'canceled' vs 'cancelled'

I've seen this brought up on your talk page before, but what's the point of changing 'cancelled' to 'canceled' when they are both correct? To be consistent in The New 52 article, it would be "cancelled", as that was the most used. You changed a few instances, but not all of them. || Tako (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Web addresses

Please don't exclude the "http://" from web addresses. It's required for proper linking in pretty much every venue of the web, including here; that's why we have piping and such to hide it in Wiki markup. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 23:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I guess it was discussed above as part of the template, but it shouldn't be changed to exclude the "http://" unless there's a major revision of the article. Nate • (chatter) 00:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops

Oops...
I meant full plots on the episodes of Maryoku Yummy. Ryan Woo-Ming (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
That's the trouble; I don't KNOW the full plots on the episodes of Maryoku Yummy because I have never seen the show on any channel, especially The Hub. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Tron: Uprising's supposed cancellation

I've come by to warn you that continued efforts to use an inaccurate reference to 'confirm' the cancellation of Tron: Uprising, or any other media, will be reported. Cancellation of a show is a serious event and must be confirmed before it can be stated on the Wiki page. Should you come across an official statement by Disney or the show's producer, feel free to edit the page's status. Until then, the official statement must remain; "No official decision of as to the show's future has yet been released.". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dark Knight 1989 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tron: Uprising article has been temporarily protected, but that does not mean the current version of the article is being supported by administrators. Please contribute to the discussion so we can get this figured out. I think everyone who is involved in this edit war really likes the show and that is why tempers are high, but let's try to discuss this rationally. Spidey104 15:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Have you looked at the new discussion for the possible cancellation of Tron: Uprising? It definitely looks like they are correct that the show has not been officially cancelled yet. Can you please post a comment there, here, or on my talk page so we know you've seen it. If you agree with us I can request the page to be unprotected (as the editor who requested the protection I should be able to get it taken down) and things go back to normal, and we wait for official confirmation until editing the article to say the show is cancelled. Sound good to you?? Spidey104 03:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The consensus is currently against you about the status of Tron: Uprising. I know you have edited since I posted comments here, so I know you are ignoring them. I doubt you'll be able to sway the consensus of the discussion, but if you don't contribute to the discussion at all it will definitely go against you. If you decide to continue your edit war after the protection has been lifted you can be blocked for going against consensus. You are generally a good editor, but consider this a warning because I'm worried you're ignoring these comments because you plan to continue editing in the way you see fit. Spidey104 16:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! gwickwiretalkediting 00:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Tables

When creating tables, row and column headings and data must be directly related. Series overview tables summarise information about the individual seasons, which is why we use "season premiere" and "season finale" for the column headings. It doesn't matter whether there are 100 seasons, or only one, each row summarises information about a single season, so "season premiere" and "season finale" are still appropriate. This is why this edit to Zero Hour (2013 TV series) was reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AdamDeanHall. You have new messages at Drmargi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tagging TV articles with "Summarize section"

In two of your edits, here and here, you want the summaries for the individual episode to be shorter, but as per Template:Episode list, the summaries listed thus far are well within the 100–300 word summary of the episodes. Thanks. — Wyliepedia 13:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Calm down

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.
I've noticed an increasing number of aggressive edit summaries coming from you in recent days [14], [15] (x11, all inappropriate), [16], in addition to your wholly inappropriate message on my talk page. Please remember that WP:CIVIL is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and expected of all editors. You need to calm down, assume good faith on the part of other editors, and then explain why an edit is being reverted or is inappropriate in reasonable, civil language. At no time should you threaten to report an editor, such as you did with me, use caps and excessive numbers of exclamation points in an edit summary, or tell an editor what they can/can't do, particularly in a way that suggests you are the final word on the content in any article. This is a collaborative project, and your approach to content should be designed to build consensus, not bully or harass other editors into doing what you want. (It also wouldn't hurt to thank JayJay and AussieLegend for setting up your archiving). --Drmargi (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Have you ever though about archiving some of your messages, your talk page is extremely long. JayJayWhat did I do? 01:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please archive ALL of my messages for me? I don't know HOW to archive! AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done JayJayWhat did I do? 23:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


I've been bold and setup automatic archiving and indexing of your archive pages. Threads that have had no replies in 30 days will now be archived automatically, and once LegoBot has run, User talk:AdamDeanHall/Archive index will be populated. (You can see my index page for an example.) --AussieLegend (✉) 03:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll notice that your Archive index has now been populated. It will be periodically updated by LegoBot, so you don't need to touch it at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Please do not remove the {{copyvio}} template from articles, as you did with 666 Park Avenue. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Talk:666 Park Avenue/Temp. If you continue to insert copyright violations and/or remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. Psychonaut (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Website

Why do you keep reverting the website in the Tron: Uprising article to http://www.disney.com/tron?? When you enter that it automatically redirects to http://disneyxd.disney.com/tron-uprising, so it makes a lot more sense to use that website? Spidey104 23:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleveland show

hi adam,

just a little fyi http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/fox-no-decision-fate-cleveland-show-441450 fox hasn't officially cancelled the Cleveland show yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.87.60 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Adam, here we go again. Please refrain from telling editors what they can and cannot do in an article. The red box color in the various television season articles makes the text very, very difficult to read; a lighter shade of red transmits the same information as the brighter red. Once a discussion has begun and particularly once consensus is reached, it's your obligation to participate in the discussion. Under no circumstances does Wikipedia give you the right to tell other editors what they can and cannot do. This is a group process with consensus a core principle. --Drmargi (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Esquire logo because of the source of where it came from. The source is a blog named Idea Peepshow. I thought blogs weren't allowed to be used for sources on Wikipedia? Also the blog is about 6 hilarious and free show ideas for the new Esquire network. Does that sound professional to you? Also the logo box states probable on air logo for Esquire network. No one knows what the logo will be since the network keeps pushing back its launch. Did you even read what I left on the talk page? Can you explain to me why you reverted my change?--BeckiGreen (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, too, and agree with Becki's removal of the logo. Your caption says it all: probable logo, as in speculative. The standard is WP:VERIFY; until you can verify the actual logo, it must remain out. --Drmargi (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"The Neighbors"

Hello. I'm curious as to why you performed this edit (as well as this one and this one). Thanks. —David Levy 05:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

He likes to remove hidden notes for some reason. He removed a hidden note that I wrote once. JayJayWhat did I do? 15:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Instead of being pissy about it JayJay, why don't you start a discussion on the article talk page and gain consensus to retain the hidden notes? --Drmargi (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I shouldn't need to start a discussion just to keep a hidden note, its not like talk pages are that active anyways. JayJayWhat did I do? 15:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Why did you remove these particular notes?
On Friday, the "ABC Publicity" Twitter feed contained a premature announcement that The Neighbors was renewed for a second season. (In actuality, the deal had not yet been completed.) The message was deleted (and ABC formally retracted the announcement) the same day, but not before several outlets reported the renewal. Late Friday and early Saturday, most of these sources issued corrections. But various Wikipedia editors kept reading the earlier reports and adding the erroneous renewal information to articles. Simply removing it (and explaining the situation via the edit summary) proved insufficient, as other editors understandably saw no reason to check the history before attempting to rectify the omission. That's why I inserted the hidden notes.
You replaced one with the aforementioned incorrect information (while mentioning only an unrelated change in your edit summary). Five minutes later, you removed the claim (with the summary "'The Neighbors' is not part of the ABC lineup.", which is accurate but irrelevant to whether it's been renewed for next season) without restoring the note intended to prevent such an error from occurring. A minute later, you removed the other note without explaining why.
ABC officially renewed The Neighbors last night, so the question of whether to include these specific notes is moot. I just want to understand your rationale (for future reference). —David Levy 16:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I await your reply. —David Levy 14:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Now that The Neighbors has been renewed, please don't include any hidden notes. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I explicitly stated that the renewal rendered the question of whether to include these specific notes moot. Obviously, there's no reason to do so now.
I'm asking why you removed them before the renewal occurred. —David Levy 14:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The reason why I removed them because I thought The Neighbors wasn't part of the ABC lineup, but it turned out I was wrong after all. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that I understand now. Thanks for clarifying. —David Levy 14:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Weigel Broadcasting may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note...

I noticed you templated this IP here for making "unconstructive" that were "vandalism" edits. Taking a look at this users contribs, I noticed that the only so called unconstructive edit was to add a list of shows that haven't aired started to air yet. Which is by no means vandalism or unconstructive. Please take a moment and recheck what is not vandalism and not bite newcomers again. Whilst you and I know that wikipedia is not a crystal ball, new IP editors may not. As such we should fully explain our reverts in edit summaries rather than like you did here where you just stated they "were not allowed". -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Star Trek: Generations

Hello AdamDeanHall. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Star Trek: Generations, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Information icon Hello, I'm ViperSnake151. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Hub Network without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Why did you single out the revised and better-written history that actually has encyclopedic value? ViperSnake151  Talk  05:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Raw template

Hey. You removed this template from the WWE Raw page three years ago. Ever since, everyone has had to manually add the number. Why did you do that? Feedback ☎ 22:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought adding the start date template would make things a lot easier.

— AdamDeanHall
[17] How does that make it easier? People have to manually update the article every week. With this template, it updates automatically. You'll only need to edit when there is ever an interruption to the weekly broadcasting, which has up until now, never happened. Feedback ☎ 00:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Updating" ref

Please explain this change. You claimed to have "updated" the ref, but all you did was remove the archive URL for a paywalled article and remove attribution of the publisher. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

All I did was add the name of the author of the article. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of programs broadcast by Hub Network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Transformers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

103.6.87.121

It's TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) behind this IP and they shouldn't be doing any editing, period, and that report was a WP:BOOMERANG for sure. Nate • (chatter) 04:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hi, I've semi-protected your page for 48 hours because of the onslaught. I can make it longer or lift it entirely, whatever you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please make it longer, because I've a feeling this isn't going to be over anytime soon. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
How long would you like?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
A week, maybe? AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done --Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Just gave it another week, let me know if you want more or less. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I want one more week. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm sorry you had to be snared into all of this; I haven't seen a sock this persistent in a long time in trying to keep editing here. Nate • (chatter) 23:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Soapnet

What was wrong with just leaving the Comcast information instead of changing everything to AT&T? The AT&T list is harder to read and requires choosing a state from a drop-down list. If anything, instead of replacing Comcast, why not just add AT&T as a second source? Andyross (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're not happy with the source, add the Comcast one back. ADH doesn't dictate the sources used (despite his edit summary, which was troubling), and has a bad habit of changing sources for no apparent reason, often without an edit summary. --Drmargi (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town

User:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beerest355 Talk 19:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transformers: Prime, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Super 7 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Noah's Ark: The New Beginning for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Noah's Ark: The New Beginning 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/Noah's Ark: The New Beginning 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. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013–14 United States network television schedule may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {| class="wikitable" style="width:100%;margin-right:0;text-align:center"
  • | colspan="2" |''[[Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey]]'' <small>(3/9)</small><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/13-200.html|title=Library of Congress Officially

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Update?

The article Jonathan Bird's Blue World which you created seems to be in need of some sort of update. The most recent update on 9 June 2012 says, "Season four is currently in production". What's the latest word?
—Telpardec  TALK  20:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the new Hub logo, and this is the latest version of the secondary The Hub logo. Hope this helps. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 08:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, you may be blocked from editing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you move a page maliciously, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Not sure how you think your personal preference gives you the right to do that, but it is not acceptable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christine Nguyen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Christine Nguyen 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 or group of people, 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. 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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jessie Lunderby

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jessie Lunderby 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, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, 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. 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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. — CactusWriter (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 January

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

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) 00:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Feisty!

I am not bossing you around, I'm simply using this as a platform to promote my petition, REGARDING THIS SHOW!!! Get over yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.111.63 (talk • contribs)

Both of you, I would like to suggest you not to be involved in revert wars. It may result both of you being blocked. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring. If one of you disagree with another, please explain. Try your best to resolve the conflict. Otherwise you can discuss the issue at WP:AN or WP:ANI. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 22:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of The Super Hero Squad Show episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ka-Zar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Replacing dashes with new dashes"

When you replace the dashes on the List of Beauty & the Beast (2012 TV series) episodes it breaks the links in the Series Overview box. Please either stop doing this or change the Series Overview box to make the links work. Morfusmax (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

G4

G4 is shutting down currently they are only on ATT Uvers and there is no listings after the 18th of February 2014. It looks like the last day of the network is the 18th. I agree January 15th is the wrong day to list there but they network will be shutting down. Even the g4.tv no longer goes to their website and I expect after they are taken off Uvers the website will be gone just like all of the youtube pages. --LukeBK (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did you see or hear that? I never saw any articles saying that G4 was going to shut down this coming Tuesday. AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Club (reality show)

The article The Club (reality show) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability?

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. Alrofficial (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

JEDI KNIGHT

Special Appreciation
Hi Adam Dean Hall . I am Balachander from India. I read your articles in wikipedia. I am impressed. I would like to congratulate you and your awesome work. :) . Balachander balakrishnan (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Clone Wars Season 6

Season 6 is part of the series, the final episode of which was released via Netflix on March 7th, 2014. There is no reason to completely ignore an entire season of the show just because you don't want Netflix mentioned. Gibshamari (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Resurrection (U.S. TV series) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to TV Guide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }</ref> The CBS acquisition was finalized later that month for $100 million.<ref>{{cite web|url=[http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/its-official-cbs-acquires-half-of-tv-guide-partners-with-lionsgate/|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of programs broadcast by Esquire Network

The article List of programs broadcast by Esquire Network has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article has been completely unsourced for at least a year and violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

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. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

edit warring

You need to work with other editors more and read up on WP:OWN. Just because you do not like the additions does not mean they don't belong there. Take it to the talk page and stop the WP:EDITWAR2601:7:1940:4C:ACD8:DC36:DC33:D735 (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Bad Teacher (TV series)

Please stop attempting to replace the source on this article that referenceszap2it with theFutonCritic. The page your listing as a source doesn't mention the episodes that are listed on zap2it. Use a source on the FutonCritic that currently mentions the episodes that also appear on zap2it. Otherwise your edits with continue to be reverted, and you'll be reported for inciting an edit war where you're clearly 100% in the wrong.

Also, I've encountered you before on Wikipedia a few times, and have read through some of your archived talk notes as well. It's clear that you still insist on making up your own rules and insist on having things done the way you want them, even if it's completely wrong.

- Wattlebird (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry!

I accidentally hit rollback on your edit-my mistake! You're doing a good job! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

request

hello. I see that you have edited and worked hard on articles dealing with television programming. I have a question, that I hope you can help me out with. Regarding the article "List of programs previously broadcast by American Broadcasting Company". I was trying to remember the name of a program on ABC...shown in New York, some years past, every Saturday at 12 noon. It was a talk show news philosophical type program.

I was wondering why that program (whatever the name was, that I can't recall right now), is not shown or mentioned anywhere in the WP article. It's one of those things that if I SAW the name somewhere, I would recall it. So I don't see it on the article. I was wondering and hoping if you might know what I'm referring to. It was on for YEARS...from what I remember, always on Saturday at 12 noon (at least shown in New York), on ABC...channel 7. I don't remember the name of the program for some reason. It was on in the 1990's, and into past 2000, I believe.

And it doesn't seem to be listed anywhere in the article, as there is no "Saturday afternoon" headings anywhere, or anything that I notice for it under "news and talk show" etc. I'm wondering why it's not there on the article. If I were to see the name of the show written somewhere, or mentioned to me, I would recall it immediately, as being the show. But I can't remember it right now off hand, and I don't see it anywhere on the WP article, for "past ABC programs". I hope you have an idea what I'm talking about, or know the program name in question. Please let me know. I would appreciate it. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 May

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

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) 00:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 United States network television schedule

Try requesting a third opinion about this matter between you and Hebron14. --George Ho (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014–15 United States network television schedule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resurrection (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 June

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

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) 00:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AdamDeanHall/Archive_4&oldid=1144264887"