User talk:Spshu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



The Prime Time Entertainment Network was just a blanket title for syndicated programming used by Warner Brothers. It was NOT a full-fledged network, even though several stations who carried PTEN-branded programming (like WWOR) eventually joined UPN in 1995. I have corrected this fact. Rollosmokes 17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It was not a "blanket title for sydnicated programming" until CC/United Television pull out. The Federal Trade Commission & Federal Communication Commission does not consider a "TV Network" a TV Network untill it offers 15 hours of prime time(note 14) (7 PM to 11 PM) programming. I remember when the WB and UPN where starting up and that the were not offically considered networks. PTEN was structured the same way MyNetworkTV (MNTV) is now, sydnicated arm (20th Television) together with TV Station company consoritium (Fox Station Group). The Neworks prime time hourly offerings: MNTV 12, the CW 13, Fox 15, ABC 22, CBS 22, NBC 22. I remember reference when UPN and the WB were starting up that they were not offical networks as they were below the specified hours but people considered them networks and as far as I know they never exceed 15 hours of programming. So as it stands you would have to remove MNTV, UPN, WB and CW as networks. But I think that most people would consider them as networks, since that was the intent when they were started as the affiliates got the whole programming. Spshu 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal -- You are a new user, as you claim, so who are you to give me a "warning" about deleting information? You're not an administrator, so don't act like one. Also, don't act as if you're: 1) trying to prove a point and 2) claiming ownership of any and all articles tied in to PTEN so you can prove your point.
The fact is this: Fox, UPN, WB, and CW were and are NETWORKS, despite programming the minimum required prime-time hours as dictated by the FCC. PTEN was NOT A NETWORK. I'm sticking to that, and we can take this debate to the WikiProject Television Stations group for further debate. Rollosmokes 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

September 2007[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to WWOR-TV, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeutralHomer T:C 14:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not a new user. Please stop vandalizing my talk page. Spshu 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Neither am are vandalising the WWOR-TV page, hence the warning. - NeutralHomer T:C 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Removing warning against vandalism on your talk page, NeutralHomer; really rich when you have no clue. That is what Rollosmokes did when originally confronted with warnings against his vandalism of multiple pages while he entreated that the discussion should go to the TV Station project talk page. (Perhaps, you should read above what he had to say about that. And effectively YOU now.) Now the both of you refuse to acknowledge the discussion there that PTEN is a network. Spshu 15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The next time you vandalise any page with by adding PTEN to it without external (meaning information outside of Wikipedia) proof, you will be reported to AIV for vandalism and blocked. Simple as that....curb this behaviour now before it costs you. - NeutralHomer T:C 15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You will stop this now!! The proof is in the archive TV Station discussion that you refuse to read. Spshu 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That is on Wikipedia...I said off Wikipedia. But I stand by what I said. - NeutralHomer T:C 15:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
...and your comment still indicate that you have not read the previous discussion as it does link to outside sources. Spshu 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
....from the Chris-Craft Industries page here on Wikipedia: "In the early 1990's, Chris-Craft Television formed an alternative programming consortium, Prime Time Entertainment Network, with other station groups and Warner Bros. Domestic Television that was planned to expand into the fifth television network but fizzled into a syndication brand."
Also, a quick check of many TV Guide websites for the New York area (WWOR), Chicago area (WPWR) and Philly area (WPHL) show that between '93 and '95 all three of those stations were Independent and make no mention of PTEN. - NeutralHomer T:C 15:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as an administrator and someone who contributed to the PTEN discussion that PTEN is a network. Rollosmokes reverted my restoration of WWOR-TV PTEN affiliation. Then Neutralhomer attacks me as a vandal and refuses to look at the previous discussion that was archived. Now Neturalhomer is making threats to have me banned for his failure to follow the discussion and proof of PTEN's network status. Spshu 15:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Spshu,
Thanks for your note. I've sent NH the external link, and asked him not to give out vandalism warnings to good-faith contributors like yourself. It's clear from the link that PTEN was trying to launch a network. It is also clear they quickly (within a couple of years) failed. I am confident we can establish some sort of agreement about this on WT:TVS. Do not revert these users until we can come to some agreement. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Woolworth at Genesee Valley[edit]

Are you sure that Woolworth at Genesee Valley Center was replaced with KB Toys and other stores? Everyone I know says it was cut into smaller stores (possibly the Waldenbooks that you mentioned), and that after those smaller stores left, the former Woolworth was turned into Steve & Barry's. 12:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasonably sure. As I remember when Woolworth closing and I was walking away from Sears, Woolworth was on my right. That would make it on the West side while Steve and Barry's replaced Waldenbooks and a craft store on the opposite side. Spshu 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I'll look into it. By the way, I'm the same person as above; I keep forgetting to log in. TenPoundHammer 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I checked with my aunt. I know this is about a month late, but at least now I have an answer. My aunt used to work at the mall in the 1970s, and she's positive that Woolworth was where Steve & Barry's is now. According to her, Waldenbooks was cut up into Waldenbooks and a craft shop and such before Steve & Barry's took the spot. TenPoundHammer 01:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

KFTY and the sale of Clear Channel stations to Newport[edit]

You changed the owner of KFTY from Clear Channel to Newport; however, that information is not correct. The sale of the station (and others) from Clear Channel to Newport has not been approved by the FCC, even though Newport has already applied to sell KFTY to LK. The station should still list Clear Channel as its owner, not Newport. Please be more careful and verify your information before adding it to articles. Thanks. dhett (talk contribs) 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that they were already selling stations from the Clear Channel (with no condition information at Broadcast & Cable's website), the FCC website lacking any meaningful info & the sale of the Bluestone stations, it seem that it is likely the Clear Channel were already or soon to be in Newport's possession. Spshu 14:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation revert[edit]

You recently reverted my edit that disambiguated Avengers on Demolition Man (comics). I disambiguated the wikilink again to direct it to the Avengers (comics) page instead of the Avengers disambiguation page. It is far better to be directed to the actual page mentioned than to have to go through a disambiguation page to find the page you are looking for. Aspects (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Good work on the content regarding the Avengers. Sorry we've gotten off on the wrong foot as it were, but your work regarding much of that content has been quite good and useful. I wish controversial subjects like certain possible members didn't exist, but it seems that sort of thing is, at least now, unavoidable, given the apparent contradictions to date. If and when the Sourcebook is gotten and it is found to verify or not verify a certain party's membership, I do think that some sort of accomodation of it would be required, maybe using a formula like that I proposed on the talk page in question. That sort of statement, indicating that the official view of given storylines may have been changed since the text was first written, would probably be the clearest way out. I do hope you can understand though that as Hiding has said it isn't really that anyone wants to disagree with you or anyone else, it's just that we think we are bound by honor and the policies of wikipedia to acknowledge what the experts say, in this case a recent editor and writer, whether they agree with what was said earlier or not. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the note. I dropped a note in at WT:CMC. (Emperor (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

TomCat4680 (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation of D-Man's Membership Status[edit]

Hello, I have accepted this case on behalf of the Mediation Cabal. I have left comments here. Please try and remain civil throughout the discussion. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Avengers Members[edit]

Hello, I know that you have had some issues, with edits made to the List of Avengers members article in the past. I am writing to remind you, that when there is a dispute, proper etiquette is to discuss it on the talk page, before entering into an edit war. Please refer to the talk page, for the consensus that was made, on the reversion of your edits to this article. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical Political Party Template[edit]

Hey I fixed it for you... there was just no metadata template for the Know Nothing party yet (look at its talk page and you'll see what I'm talking about)... that was the problem.

So if you go look at it now it should be fine.

Thanks for letting me know.

-Prezboy1 talk 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Defunct-co. template[edit]

Hey, great new template -- an informative idea. It needs some tweaking (image to be centered, non-used lines to disappear until they're filled). Do you know how to do this, or can you point me to template code? Thanks! --Tenebrae (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have general just use what is available. Have made a few templates but images & hidding lines until used is a bit beyond my skills. Links to templates appear at the bottom of the edit this page. Here is the Template:Infobox_Defunct_company. Spshu (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Halo Burger[edit]

Thank you for update and clean up on Halo Burger CFBancroft (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you go to Halo Burger on Linden Road because of you live that area and take photo of Plague that said "1983 Voted Flint's #1 hamburger by a Flint Journal Newspaper survey" and upload photo snap here so that way other people will see and believe and remove "citation needed" by the way you did wonderful job! CFBancroft (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you did update two refer on Halo Burger. Thank YOU! CFBancroft (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Founding year[edit]

The founding year for Halo Burger, which they clearly indicate on their logo, is 1923. Period. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Logos and self source (ie. Haloburger) material are general not accepted as sources. Spshu (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
But the history page of the official web site, which I added as a supporting citation, is acceptable as a source as well as journalistic citations which I added as well. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Any thing from the official website is self source as I just pointed out. Are thusly telling me that this source (Gary Flinn (2004-05-21). "A Tasty Part of Flint History". Flinn's Journal. Gary Flinn. Retrieved 2008-05-30.) is false? Which most of the earlier part is based on and the dates I use in the founded dates. Spshu (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I wrote that. I am Gary Flinn. Quoting from my own text from YOUR link: " In 1951, Vernor’s moved the oak barrels from the site and James Vernor II sold the sandwich shop to Bill Thomas, the manager of Kewpee Hamburgs, a downtown Flint fixture since 1923." That should settle things once and for all.
No it does not. As per your article, Thomas did not open Kewpee's in 1923 and did not own that location until 1944 and was not Haloburger until 1967. All in your article. Each change is noted my version. Your are making a mountain out of a mole hill. In this case, Haloburger didn't come full formed as per your article; it was more evoluationary. I don't understand why in the world you don't understand your own article!!!! Spshu (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Changes in ownership do not change the founding year. The name change in 1967 did not affect the fact that the management and food was exactly the same before and after the name change. The sale to Dortch Enterprises after the piece was written does not affect the founding year either. I reported the edit war on Halo Burger's official Facebook page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

But Thomas did not own Kewpees at all. He just had the rights to use the name; he was a licensee. Just as you would not consider a local franchisee of McDonald's as actually being McDonalds. Ed Adams of Toledo, Ohio owned Kewpee in 1945, not Thomas. Reporting the edit war on Halo Burger's Facebook page is meaningless and anti-wikipedian. Spshu (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill Thomas did own the original Harrison Street restaurant which was founded in 1923 and the burger is still called the QP. Who owns the name is secondary to the restaurant itself. The restaurant is what the article is about, not the restaurant's name. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
That restaurant no longer exists. Spshu (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
But the business still does. My article stated that the staff moved into the new East Court Street Halo Burger location. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure that business still exist as it is in Ohio called Kewpee. But a new location is not that restaurant which is what you claimed above nor is the staff the restaurant. Spshu (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The original restaurant was FORCED to move because the building was condemned to make wasy for the University of Michigan--Flint campus development. So the staff was moved to the new east side location. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

First you state it is about the "original Harrison Street restaurant" then its is about "But the business still does." That is what I am pointing out. You have no clue. Spshu (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

YOU have no clue. The Kewpee article states: The original Flint location changed its name to Bill Thomas' Halo Burger which is still a thriving business, but not at the original location which was torn down in 1979. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
No, you don't even respond to the point, I made. You say it isn't the business its the restaurant, then you say its the business. Which is it? Then you attack me as clueless. How rich. With this tantrum, I guess I don't know why I ever support your article as an source. You don't even understand your own source, like I point out at Talk:Halo Burger. Spshu (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about both. Halo Burger was founded in 1923 as Kewpee. Kewpee employee Bill Thomas bought the restuarant in 1944 which changed its name in 1967 and was sold by the Thomas family in 2010. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Right then the restaurant started in 1923, Thomas' business that became Haloburger started in 1944 thus the multiple years in the foundation. But, you come out against the business notion then you switch positions back and forth. Spshu (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Compare this to another restaurant chain which evolved. Big Boy Restaurants was originally Bob's Pantry in 1936 and Big Boy is the name of their flagship hamburger. Even though the restaurant chain was officially renamed Big Boy in 2000, the founding year is still 1936. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi friend. It looks like you're edit warring over trivia in mainspace on the Halo Burger article. Please take it to the talk page and work out your disagreements with the other editor there. Also, be advised that it is not kosher to raise a posse to win an edit war. There are no fundamental, insolvable issues here — just talk to the dude and work it out, okay? Carrite (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure who you are address, me or Steelbeard1. As he directly tried to "raise a posse to win an edit war." starting with User talk:TenPoundHammer#Halo Burger. Also Rich Farmbrough, GrahamHardy, Denisarona. Spshu (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
And reports me to HB's Facebook page. Spshu (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


Please do not remove valid references from an article. I don't see any reason why you should have to do so. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The information in the info box is including in the body of the article, I found some of the editors I work with don't mind them not be recited in the infobox. Spshu (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The present form is just fine, though. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


No other article has a timeline. The one that's there is 100% redundant to the rest of the article. Why should it exist? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Has to do with the argument over the founding date of Halo Burger, whether it started in 1923 as advertised or in 1944 when Bill Thomas purchased the original location. Spshu (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Then why not incorporate that elsewhere in the article and say something like "Some sources say that Halo Burger was begun in 1923, others say 1944"? It'd look a lot more "professional" IMO and eliminate the superfluous timeline. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Logos do not lie. Read it. It says "Since 1923." Can that be any more plain? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, that is what is it was to begin with plus the "easter egg" of the link from the founding year to that section as the discussion leaded to the majority indicating only one year should be listed in the ibox as I was listing two. Steelbeard1 then expanded the founding section into a timeline section. Spshu (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:BTHaloburger.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BTHaloburger.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Steelbeard1/Halo Burger[edit]

Pictogram resolved.svg
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

I have this other, editor Steelbeard1, has argued over fact of Halo Burger's founding but fails to comprend what any one is saying. The 3RR page always says if it content then go to mediation. He was also aware of his edit warring as going as far as to attempt to enlist others in his edit warring: TenPoundHammer, Rich Farmbrough, GrahamHardy, Denisarona. And reports me to HB's Facebook page.

Because there was content, I posted notices on the various projects/taskforces listed on the talk page. While the newcommers indicated that I was right, they indicted that one only year should be in the infobox as the rest would be in the article. So I devised a compromise to end the repetitive and debunked arguments.

He is now edit warring over the article being move to the Economy of Flint, Michigan instead of the Flint, Michigan Catagory which is basically in as it is a subcat. of Flint, Michigan.

I guess I am at complete loss on how to deal with him. Spshu (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you talked to him about this issue directly/on his talk page? If you have, and there's not been a satisfactory resolution, then you could make a post on the edit war noticeboard to get community consensus for a course of action. Does this help? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Old Grand Blanc location an IHOP?[edit]

I'm familiar with Grand Blanc back then and Genesee County NEVER had an IHOP until this year. The Halo Burger which was in downtown Grand Blanc was a Perkins Pancake House. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Would this citation work? "perkins+pancake"&dq=11351+%2B+"perkins+pancake"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJudjp8trQAhWH5IMKHXtqA7QQ6AEIHDAA Steelbeard1 The citation you give clearly gives incorrect info. (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I know the writer of the erroneous article you are citing and he is trying to get that piece corrected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
A) Your personal knowledge is not verifiable, so your personal statement does not trump a reliable source like the Flint Journal. B) I already check your Flint Suburban Directory which has nothing about what replaced the Perkins Pancake House, so no that and the Angelfire website (unreliable) do not constitute sources that indicated it took over a Perkins.
Steelbeard1's personal knowledge is certainly verifiable as I am the author of the mlive piece in question. The source was never the Flint Journal, that's a misconception. Michigan Appetite was a blog I wrote on occasion for mlive. (The main address for it is which includes the word "blog".) I never wrote for the Flint Journal, and have never even set foot in the building. Having grown up in Grand Blanc my family ate at the restaurant in question many times. But it was my own mind that guessed it was an IHOP as I was probably only twelve at the time. That was a lot of years ago, and the mind plays tricks. That I guessed at what kind of restaurant it was when writing that blog entry is the real cause of what's going on here. Now Spshu, back on 5 April 2012 on the Halo Burger Talk page you wrote "... marketing material like a logo are not usable sources on Wikipedia. Nor are blogs." As Michigan Appetite was a simple blog, not anything journalistic whatsoever, and does include numerous other errors I can no longer fix, I have removed the reference to my mlive blog piece about the Grand Blanc location previously being an IHOP. I hope to get to the Bentley Historical Library in Ann Arbor soon where the R.L. Polk city directories are archived, and intend to locate a hard reference. Lunapiertech (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
No, @Lunapiertech:, Steelbeard1's personal knowledge is not verifiable (that is against WP:VER). He has even been contradictory with his own articles. Mlive was run on blog software, but is a group of newspapers not a web log, so showing "blog" in the url doesn't undermine one way or another. And I don't need to be quote my own words back to me, I am quite aware that I use WP standards (WP:BLOGS). All you had to do was to indicate that Michigan Appetite was a true blog that was not subject to editorial controls. I already remove references to the IHOP, you removed that it was a pancake house, which I changed it to as to end the argument with Steelbeard1. Although he continued arguing. Please actually read what you are removing (" where it took over a former pancake house restaurant". - that does not say IHOP). Steelbeard1 already located them if you bother to read this exchange, he has just failed to edit them. He is, I guess, expecting me to do the work. Spshu (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
What I wrote above was not abusive whatsoever, merely explained. Your language here is the opposite. Again you are not showing good faith. Your attitude matters.Lunapiertech (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me. It was you talked down to me by throwing my words back at me. And I "merely explained" how you were wrong/in error. I did not say you were abusive - again this you assuming bad faith -just that you should read things more carefully. Point out WP rules/guideline is abusive? Saying I am "abusive" shows your attitude is bad, so how about "Your attitude matters". Again you are assuming bad faith not good faith, thus your "Vindictive Editing" rant with out prove and made with false statements. Don't say any thing more here. Spshu (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This citation at "11351"+%2B+"old+bridge"&dq="11351"+%2B+"old+bridge"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWtZWa3t7QAhVPwWMKHRy-D1AQ6AEIGjAA proves that 11351 S. Saginaw in Grand Blanc which was Perkins Pancake House became a Halo Burger. So there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


I'll note it there, but really, as long as he's not requesting unblock again it's not relevant. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Move of Scouting articles[edit]

I undid all of your moves. The naming has been discussed within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting several times; since there a very little sources for English translations of associations' names, the project decided to keep article titles in the original language until there is real use of the English translation. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article names#Main Points. All German associations use multiple translations in their official documents depending on the translator. --jergen (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles in the English language Wikipedia must be named in English per Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Naming conventions, so the need is for it to be in English to have an article. I see some of the discussion here. Those article use those names, so if the English language names are a problem they should be remove or all English versions should be added to the article. Secondly, selecting one English translation of the name for the article hopefully the most used translation then setting up redirects for the other translations would work.Spshu (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Jergen is right in this, the name must be official or commonly used. If there are multiple equivalents, then the native name shall be used. We don't call sushi vinegared rice ball wrapped in seaweed with some sort of seafood on top. In cases where the name is not commonly translated into English, the native name stays. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
But sushi has been adopted into the English language same as Squash_(plant), Moccasin (footwear) and many other words. Like I pointed out that no one is challenging the translation directly in the individual articles. In the case of Ring deutscher Pfadfinderverbände, German Scout Federation is on its wikipedia page and is used on |its offical website. Spshu (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
And there is a completly different translation in a more recent official English presentation [1]: "Union of German Boy Scout/Girl Guide Associations". Can you decide which to choose? I can't. The same applies for all moved German associations. As for the Estonian Eesti Skautide Ühing there is no translation on its website, so you used an approximate translation - this is unencyclopedic in my eyes.
And you interpretation of the naming policy is strange. It is clearly stated that articles should use the "more commonly recognized" variant, be it either English or the original language. --jergen (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that my interperation of the naming policy is strange. The policy states:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

So, I guess you either use WOSM's naming convention or word for word order might make sense too. Spshu (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Do I understand you correctly saying: WOSM is a reliable source, but the German organization using also a second differing translation itself is not reliable? That is quite strange. --jergen (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In the Germany Language sentence order of the words are not as important as it is in the English language. Secondly for additional translation can be set up as redirects and indicated in the article. I just saying that using WOSM's translation, as most people might find these to be the most easily recognizable translation for the organizations' name as WOSM is a recognized international organization for WOSM's members. None of the other translations would be discounted they would just be used as redirects and indicated in the article. Spshu (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"In the Germany Language sentence order of the words are not as important as it is in the English language." - This is utter rubbish (excuse my language). Word order has the same importantance as in English.
I'll stop discussing here. If you want to move associations article come ahead and propose an different approach on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Scouting. You proposal should not only include members of WOSM, but also cover members of WAGGGS as well as the numerous independent organizations. This is not do delay the discussion but to reach more users and to have more input. --jergen (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect as far as the difference between German language and English language in word order -- see: German_language#Word_order. Spshu (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That applies only within full sentences but I can't see a verb in Ring deutsche Pfadfinderverbände. --jergen (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Adair Tishler[edit]

Using a non-free image in the infobox is a clear policy violation. As to whether a free image is possible, Getty images manages to have taken 16 photos of her at public events without stalking her. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Getty Images going to give us a photo for the Article? ...... I think not. Second, part of stalking is trying to figure out were she is going to be and these public events generally (I would assume) don't just hand out guest list. Getty Images is just going to be at all these events regardless and probably have arrangement for robe/carpet side positioning which any joe smoe can not get. Third, using a non-free image in the infobox is not a clear policy violation, see Wikipedia:NFCC#3. Since it is already used in her Heroes character article, it is as recommend in 7. "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." reducing the likely hood of problems with additional "non-free content". If non-free images are completely a problem then I started remove images and links to images for logos of TV stations, derivied works from else were like flags, etc. I will send them all your way, deal? Spshu (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Then also why have you remove it from the Molly Walker article? Spshu (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

standard official names of townships are: (Charter) Township of Name[edit]

Regarding this edit. Is there some evidence for this? The township doesn't appear to use that form. While I have not seen the township charter for Vienna Township, I have looked at others that were available online, and there are some which do not use that form. That is, there are cases where the official charter creating the charter township does not use that form. So unless there is evidence that that is the official name, I don't think it is safe to assume that there is a "standard" official name. olderwiser 21:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Here Vennia Township uses Charter Township of Vienna. Um, no direct evidence of this standard. It is interesting about the official township charters that you have seen. --Quick lookup-- OK, The Charter Township Act 359 of 1947 supports my statement that it is standard for "charter township of ............................". So the charters that do not use that form fail to follow the Act and have it through the act by default, I would guess or were perhaps done before this section was ammended to included said language. Spshu (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that. That's interesting. I'll have to see if I can recall where I came across township charters that were styled differently. olderwiser 22:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions[edit]

I'm not at all sure you have the correct understanding of wiki naming convention. London is not London, Middlesex or New York is not New York, New York. In my opinion duffield should have been left as it was as it was a) first there in wikipedia, b) larger and c) older. Its likely that your area around a road called Duffield Road is named after Duffield near Derby and its 1000 year old name. Can you check your sources for your policy interpretation. Victuallers (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You are citing exceptions to the naming convention. It has to be a notable city like London or New York (which is at New York City as there is the state). See England naming convention page as city/village/town, ceremonial county is consist the correct naming convention.Spshu (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I did look at the conventions and there is no mention of notability that I can see. It says "Where possible, articles on places in the United Kingdom should go under placename."

If I look at what links to the Duffield page then there are about 50 or so links which as far as I can see all point to Duffield in Derbyshire. There are also 5 or six other article that begin Duffield .... these all concern the place in Derbyshire. I suggest that you or I add a disambiguation page. if there are going to be 2 articles or more If you look at how New York or Sheffield have their pages then there is a disambiguation page. This is a bit over the top as Duffield, Michigan does not yet have an article but I guess you are going to write one. If not then a hat note would be sufficient. Obviously it cannot be left as it is Victuallers (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Where possible, articles on places in the United Kingdom should go under placename. Where disambiguation is needed, a different system exists in each of the home nations.

And the general rule:

The general rule is to name an article about a city or town with a name that does not conflict with any other town or concept as city name. The rest of this naming convention contains guidelines about naming the articles where disambiguation is required or specific national conventions. Articles about cities and towns in some countries should be "pre-disambiguated", by having the article named as if there is a name conflict, even if one is not known at the time of writing the article. In these cases, a redirect should usually be created at the primary name, pointing to the new article, until such time as a disambiguation page is actually required.

Thank you I have left Duffield Derbyshire and created a disambigation page as seen at other UK places where there is a name clash. I have left an explanation at Duffield, Derbyshire talk page .... This page used to be at Duffield but was moved to Duffield, Derbyshire when a disambiguation page was created at Duffield. This broke all the existing wiki links. As a compromise I have created a more complete Duffield Disambiguation page at Duffield (disambiguation) and pointed the empty Duffield article at the Duffield, Derbyshire page. This will repair the existing links Victuallers (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That just fine. Spshu (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Spshu. You have new messages at Steve Crossin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 09:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Deford, Michigan[edit]

Move to Deford, Michigan talk page.

Dayne Walling[edit]

I see that you've restarted the Dayne Walling article, now that he has a stronger claim to notability. If you would like any of the information from the previously deleted version, drop a note on my page and I'll get it for you. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you deleted anything negative about Dayne Walling. His documented failures as the mayor of Flint should be placed in his record. Under his leadership crime has past record's in the history of the city. Homicide alone doubled under his failed leadership. I am not sure who you are but documented information should be allowed in this profile.

No, you are see me remove unsourced information (as indicated in the 2nd edit Undid revision summary as it should have been in the first) that you tried to insert into sourced information. Please see WP:BLP as information in a Biographies of living persons must be source so as to not be original research and verifiable. Second, he is currently basic an honorific mayor as his powers have been limited under the emergency manager (EM) law. He doesn't even have any say in the public safety even with the new expanded limited authority he has been granted by the EM. Spshu (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Lotharingia Infoboxes[edit]

Two editors have removed one infobox from the article Lotharingia, and you have the nerve to add two? Both of which do nothing to clarify a complex subject. You are not helping the encyclopedia. Srnec (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

President pro tempore of the United States Senate[edit]

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that your edits to President pro tempore of the United States Senate seem to be causing some error messages with the reference section. I can't figure out what exactly you were trying to do. Cheers! meamemg (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:United States federal executive departments#"Federal" or "National"?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States federal executive departments#"Federal" or "National"?. —Markles 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

AfD nomination of New United States Football League[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is New United States Football League. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New United States Football League. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of New United States Football League for deletion[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article New United States Football League, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New United States Football League until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

English Name (was: Federation Internationale de l'Automobile)[edit]

Hi. I can see why you might think that this is not the most appropriate name for the article, but in my experience it is far more commonly used in English language sources on this topic than the English translation. A Google search (restricted to English language pages) shows a 6 to 1 ratio in favour of "Federation Internationale de l'Automobile" over "International Automobile Federation" (See this vs this). It rises to 10 to 1 if not restricted to English language.

WP:EN does not, as far as I can see, say that articles must be named in the English language. It does say "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". There must be some, but I can't think of any reliable sources on motorsport that use the English language version.

Cheers 4u1e (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. There are several active wikiprojects covering this topic - if you're not convinced by my arguments, the most appropriate one to discuss it at is probably WP:MOTOR. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Google search are not neccessarily consider valid sources, but you should note that the search on International Automobile Federation brings up the FIA website as the first item. Second, an article about the organization uses International Automobile Federation and the article is by Brad Spurgeon, which is identified by About as a journalist "covering Formula 1 for the International Herald Tribune since 1993, and for The New York Times since 1999." Spshu (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
No but google searches are valid indicators of how widely terms are used on the internet, which is one indication of how widespread they are generally. Of course the first google result for International Automobile Federation is the FIA site! What else would it be? That tells us nothing about the relative usage of the terms, though. Perhaps more relevant is the fact the english language term does not appear at all at the official website of the FIA's most famous racing category (Formula One), and only four times at the FIA's own (english language) site. That's not the whole story either of course. As I said, some sources do use IAF, but is hardly the most authoritative source in this respect! There's a lot more that could be said, but I'm out of time for the minute. We can continue the discussion later if you wish. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • On a similar topic, I undid your move of FIFA for similar reasons. FIFA is clearly the common name for the organization. Please seek consensus before moving articles. Thank you. --John (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You also moved Fédération internationale des associations vexillologiques to the English translation of its name. Not a topic I know anything about, but I was curious about all these moves. Turns out the constitution of the FIAV says (para 1): "The name of this association is the Fédération internationale des associations vexillologiques, which is abbreviated as “FIAV.” The official translations of FIAV's name are: International Federation of Vexillological Associations (English);" etc. Now that's official name, not most common usage, but your edit summary said " Move to its correct and official English name". I suggest you move that one back as well, and I'm afraid I have to agree with John that you should talk to others before making changes like this. Certainly in the case of the FIA and FIFA there are plenty of knowledgeable editors who could have contributed to a discussion. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
There isn't any need for a discussion. It is following the policy as I pointed out 4ule1 so no "cheers" either you follow policy of the Wikipedia or you decide not to contribute any more. The FIAV official was attempting to incorrectly used FIA and FIFA as a reason not to follow to policy of English naming. You have not given an alternative prefered English name for FIA or FIFA. John, you have bother to read common name fully as you will find the Foreign names and anglicization. Spshu (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, you can still find them by their French name as a move sets up a forwarding. Also, the FIAV also has an official English name while FIA and FIFA might under some subsection I over looked do to their longer usage and no official English name, FIAV belongs under its official English name. Spshu (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way, John, the common name section you cite indicates that the name of the article should be in the most common ENGLISH name. Spshu (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Which for the example we were talking about is clearly FIFA. There is absolutely a need to discuss potentially controversial moves like this before making them. --John (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Spshu - 'Cheers', in my own personal usage at least, should be read as 'thanks' or 'Best regards' or whatever the locally acceptable signing off phrase would be. My apologies that it appears to have caused offence. None was intended.
I accept that you are following what you believe to be policy, but you are reading something into the guidance that I simply cannot see there. The Foreign names and anglicization link you provide does not say that names must be in the English language. It does say that spelling should follow English language usage (not the same thing), that Latin transliteration should be used (not relevant here) and that "whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, [should] follow English-language usage". Note that it says "whether". As I've explained above, it happens that for the FIA the French language version is the more common English language usage.
Yes, you can still find the articles by their French language names, but you can now still find them by their English language translations, so that makes no odds.
I think where we're differing is that you are reading "most common English language name" to mean most common translation of the name into the English languge, where I would read it (supported I think by all the hints about how to decide whether to translate or not) as the most common name in use in the English language, which could actually be be in German (Reichstag) , Zulu (vuvuzela) or Narn (Spoo, I think), depending on the topic.
If you're not persuaded, then by all means let's discuss this at the appropriate forum, but the relevant communities must be involved for changes like this where (since two experienced editors disagree with you) your interpretation is not obviously the correct one. Best regards :) 4u1e (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there Spshu, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Spshu/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


What you talking bout?Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Spshu. I'd like to ask about this move to Seaboard Periodicals, which, as you note, is the formal name of the company. However, under Wikipedia naming conventions, we're supposed to use the subject's common name, and this company is routinely referred to as Atlas/Seaboard. Certainly, a change of this magnitude probably shouldn't have been undertaken without discussion on the talk page, for this very reason. Let's please discuss. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping to have heard from you, since you were editing at the time I posted the above. According to WP:COMMONNAME, we must title articles with the name by which something is commonly known. This company is best known as Atlas/Seaboard. I point to these three examples, both Web-based and from print journalism by an expert source (Comic Book Artist magazine) which turn up among the first Google hits:

An Unofficial Atlas/Seaboard Checklist

"Rise & Fall of Rovin's Empire" A candid conversation with Atlas/Seaboard editor Jeff Rovin Conducted by Jon B. Cooke Transcribed by Jon B. Knutson

  • In print: "Vengeance, Incorporated: A history of the short-lived comics publisher, Atlas/Seaboard"

by Jon B. Cooke Comic Book Artist #16

I would also say that a move of this magnitude should not have been taken unilaterally, with no discussion whatsoever. Atlas/Seaboard is unquestionably the common name by which this company is known. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RfPP request[edit]

See [2]. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


Nice add with that subhead — "Culture" is indeed distinct from "History." My compliments. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my. That was rather an unpleasant note you left on my talk page. And I was entirely sincere in my post above. I'm sure there was another way to say "If you bothered to read my edit" at Marvel Entertainment ... especially since there are two articles for Marvel Entertainment.
Regardless: You seem like a very knowledgeable editor when it comes to piercing corporate veils, and I, for one, wholeheartedly welcome someone with this much-needed expertise. I would ask that we all take a breath and realize that we're all on the same side. We won't always agree — no two editors do — but I respect your work; I came out and said so in a specific instance above, when there was no need for me to. Accept a gesture of good faith. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Spshu,
Thanks for your note on my talk page. I can take a look at the situation, but I'm not sure what you want me to do here. It looks as if there were uncivil accusations from both sides, but the above comment from Tenebrae looks quite kind, and written by someone willing to work with you to improve the article. I do not see very recent discussions anywhere, which is a problem in this type of dispute. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on DreamWorks. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


I was being very polite and you jumped down my throat. You are a mean person and you do article owning. You do it to other people and you are doing it here. You never want anyone to edit your work. And may I say that you are not a good writer because you writing is convoluted, it doesn't follow a straight line, it leaves things out and you misuse words. Other editors have trouble with you, too, I can see. --Farpointer (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If you bother to read your talk page, I point out how you destroy the article and did not improve the article. You were not polite at all and you have attacked me again ("mean person" and "you are not a good writer..."). Others have problems with me because I follow the rules and don't just cave for them. --Spshu (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I have just pointed out spelling, style and guideline errors in my edit summary. Just because you can't have your way doesn't mean another editor "destroyed" an article! Can't you at least fix those basic things I point out in the edit summary? And no, owning, which I see you do a lot, isn't following the rules. It's just the opposite. We're supposed to collaborate. But you have an anger problem. I see you jumped down the throat of someone above who was being nice to you. But don't worry about me. I'm staying far away from you.
Just please try to understand that not every word you write is perfect! "loaned $5 million into"? What kind of English usage is that? It's "loaned to" not "loaned into". I know you don't believe it, but there is a lot of bad writing in there just like that. I'm sorry you don't see it. --Farpointer (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Close to 3RR[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the three reverts you have made at Cadence Industries. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, placing something on her (her?) talk page is how things should go, via discussion. I'll go take a look.
Actually, too, I've been painstakingly going through things point by point at the Cadence Industries RfC I called in the hope of you two finding middle ground, and most, not all, but most of her points seem correct. I haven't gotten down to her Pocket Books inclusion yet on the point-by-points, though a cursory glance there mentions Curtis Books. That may well be unrelated to Curtis Magazines and Curtis Circulation; "Curtis" is a common name. In the meantime, why not take a look at the point-by-point and comment (briefly, I would ask, like the comments that are there now), --Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm very encouraged by the Cadence Industries RfC so far, and I appreciate your efforts there. As I continue to say, I sincerely believe your familiarity with and knowledge of corporate structure and history makes you a valuable contributor, IMHO. Being able to work with other people is very important as well.
I have just left a note asking User:Farpointer, who has so far stayed away from the discussion, to join it, and I say there that both of you are people of good will and I believe that a better article will come out of both of you working together than either of you working alone. As a journalist, I know I'm always better with a good editor or even copy editor — just another set of eyes to look at something from a fresh perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Spshu. I've left a note at Farpointer's talk page, urging her to join the discussion at Cadence. Haven't heard anything after a day or two. Maybe if you leave her a neutral, cordial note, it'll help, if she's gotten spooked? It's just a suggestion; I honestly believe the article will be better if the two of you help edit each other. Also: What do you think of the two compromise sentences I've constructed so far? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, Spshu. Farpointer came to Talk:Cadence Industries, and since everyone seems to agree on the Pocket Books paragraph being wrong, I've gone ahead and taken it out. I've also added the Cadence logo and the Perfect Film & Chemical logo, since those seemed like non-controversial edits. You and I seem to be collaborating well together, and I'm glad of that. What do you think of the points and compromise sentences I've suggested at Talk:Cadence Industries? With genuine regard, --Tenebrae (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the Cadence logo is for the current company with that name in the distribution and assembly of telecom equipment founded in 2007. Not sure how we hand that when the current company's only claim to fame is having the same name as a previously existing company. Spshu (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, great catch. Geez, I feel like a dummy -- I'd gotten that logo from the Comics Alliance article that was footnoted, and didn't check to make sure the Comics Alliance writer knew what he was talking about. I'll take it down immediately. Now this is what I'm talking about — I'm really enjoying this collaboration, and I appreciate your knowledge of corporations. On it! --Tenebrae (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Red Circle / Timely[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure this is precisely correct. International Catalogue, which makes that statement, says its taking its information from Nevins. But Nevins is referring to Timely Publications, the overall pulp and comics publisher, and not the Timely Comics imprint: "Timely Publications (as Goodman's group had become known; before this it was known as "Red Circle" because of the logo that Goodman had put on his pulp magazines)." And Bellman refers to "a multitude of corporate entities (including Red Circle Comics) all producing the same product," just as Goodman had done with Azimuth, Zenith, etc. under the Atlas Comics imprint.

If you go to the Grand Comics Database, there's no listing for Red Circle as a publisher (except related to Archie Comics decades later) and the only "indicia publisher" paper corp. related to Goodman is a handful of 1950s Atlas comics. And Marvel Comics #1 was published by Timely Publications. (See GCD here), and there was no red circle on any subsequent issues. (See GCD here.) Goodman's pulps have a red circle on their covers, and that's what Nevins is referring to. As for Bellman, as I said, the only Red Circle Comics that Goodman published were a handful of Atlas titles in the 1950s.

I'd like to discuss this with you first before I edit that line. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What I'm thinking of, specifically, is to put the Nevins and Bellman quotes and the GCD data into a footnote and only mention Red Circle there, since neither GCD and nor any other standard source that I can find supports that Timely Comics was originally known as Red Circle Comics. These sources includes Les Daniels' Marvel Five Fabulous Decades; Marvel Chronicle; and Peter Sanderson's Marvel Universe. The Daniels book, in particular, notes that Red Circle was only used for the pulps, and even then only "halfheartedly ... when someone would remember to put it on a cover." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
If you go to the Grand Comics Database (GCDB) and look up the Ultimate imprint/brand for Marvel there you will only see three comics listed there. We both know that there have been more 3 comics in the Ultimate line; heck there has been even more title than 3. So I don't consider the GCDB to be completely reliable. The Michigan State University's Comic Art Collection Reading Room Index does have a Red Circle Magazines listed as a "American comics publisher, a Timely-Marvel imprint" also listing a "Comic Capers. -- New York : Red Circle Magazines, 1944-1946. -- col. ill. ; 26 cm. -- Published no. 1 (Fall 1944)..." Timely only selected as the representative name for Goodman's publishing group as a historian that began to research Marvel's history latched onto it given it being the publisher of Marvel Comics #1 not knowing that Goodman published under a number of corporations. as they used Marvel Group in the Spring 1947, and Atlas Comics in 1944. Spshu (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
As always, you are careful and meticulous and you make an extremely good point about the Ultimate imprint. GCD is correct, though, in saying Marvel Comics #1 was published by Timely Publications; four or five years ago I had the rare privilege of holding a copy of the November printing in my hands and reading the indicia, which gave "Timely Publications".
Since Timely Comics is the common name, and since the exact nature of Red Circle Comics seems uncertain and goes unmentioned in even those three definitive books about Marvel history, what do you think about my putting the Red Circle information, including your new information above, into a footnote explaining all this? Unlike "Timely Publications," which is the common name for the pulp/comics/magazine company, and "Timely Comics", which is the logo brand and that division's common name, "Red Circle Comics/Magazines" seems an imprint or a paper corporation and not an alternate or original name for the comics line. All your information will still be there. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't disagree with the Marvel Comics #1, I in fact pointed out that is why the comic book historian latched onto the name "Timely". ("Timely only selected as the representative name for Goodman's publishing group as a historian that began to research Marvel's history latched onto it given it being the publisher of Marvel Comics #1 not knowing that Goodman published under a number of corporations.") Look at some covers found on some of the Timely sites, Goodman didn't put any imprint/brand on some of the covers at all. Calling "Red Circle Comics" would seem logical with the common name for Goodman's pulp and other publishing ventures (Red Circle Books/Lion Books) being called Red Circle by historian in a similar situation to selecting Timely as neither were used consistantly by Goodman. I did remove the Marvel section from the Red Circle Comics article do to it being a nonindependent source referenced and the creation of the Red Circle (publishing) article and insertion of "Red Circle Comics" as a alternative name in the Timely Comics article. But back to your suggestion to place it in a foot note go ahead. Spshu (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you one better: Given the complexity of the issue, what do you think about my writing this all up as a paragraph within the article itself, at the end of the "Creation" section? The more I look at this, the more complex and interesting this new information that you've uncovered is. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
And wow! that you found is a great site. Finally, someone's untangled the paper-company labyrinth of Goodman's pulps. And it looks like we've fruitfully collaborated, in a back-door way, on Red Circle &mdash: I found and wrote up a lot of the Goodman material you used! See? I knew we'd work well together! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added a new paragraph within the Timely Comics article, containing your Jess Nevins, Richard Paul Hall and Michigan State University findings, as well as official Marvel historian Les Daniels' description of Red Circle. I left out Bellman since most of that page was a mirror the Timely Wikipedia article, and unusable as a cite. But as you'll see, that paragraph is virtually all your own information. Let me know what you think. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I've also put your information at Red Circle (publishing) and added the Red Circle logo in the infobox. I'm dying to get your opinion on these changes. By the way, that great site was able to fill in a cite-request tag at Martin Goodman (publisher). Do you think that the pulps listed on his page should also appear at Red Circle (publishing)? They'd be easy enough to copy over. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I would move the list of pulps over to the Red Circle (publishing) article. I just have not done it as I would want to verify that the list is supportable by the source. I try not to introduce unsourced material into articles I start up. I have verified the list and moved it to Red Circle. Spshu (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Great stuff! I did see the list of his sources at his own talk page; I should probably encourage him to put them up on his Red Circle website. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Apropos of that, what do you think of moving the Martin Goodman quotes section, which is all about Magazine Management, into the Magazine Management article, which I don't believe existed when they were added to the Goodman article? Since "Quotes" sections have also since been deprecated, they should probably be integrated into the article prose. I've done that kind of integrating before, so it's pretty simple for me. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Great work at Cadence Industries. I'm very proud of the way we collaborated, and, again, I admire the depth of your research abilities and your knowledge of corporate structure. Those are valuable elements needed at WikiProject Comics. I think I brought writing ability and a fresh eye, and the work we did together helped create a very solid article. I would be happy to work with you anytime, though obviously my range of interest and expertise is primarily in comics-related articles. I do know this: The last time I happened by Nabisco, that corporate article needed a hell of a lot of work. I'm sure you could rescue it.
We've still got a little work to do with Martin Goodman. Let's not lose touch after that. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
In sincere appreciation of all your hard work editing and your detailed knowledge of corporate structure, both helping to make WikiProject Comics even better -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Marvel Comics[edit]

You might want to take a look at another editor's change to the Marvel Comic infobox. I think you'd know the infobox protocol of "Owner" vs. "Parent" better than I. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Spshu! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Harry Flynn[edit]

Hello. I was just wondering if you explain your reasoning for converting Harry Flynn into a disambiguation page? It seems to have resulted in the creation of a large number of disambiguation links most of which are intended to point to the Bishop. In my mind he appears to be the primary topic. As far as I can see "Harry Flynn" the publisher does not appear to be linked to any other articles. Perhaps you could point out that articles in which this subject is mentioned? Thanks, France3470 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just saw the link at Marvel Comics so I'll add it on the dab. Looks like this resolves everything. Sorry to have cluttered up your talk page. In future though it would really help us disambiguators if you could add in the necessary blue links when you create new dabs, otherwise the page will get tagged for cleanup and likely get lost for a few months in the backlog. Best, France3470 (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "'Green Oak, Michigan"[edit]

A page you created, 'Green Oak, Michigan, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 15:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Disney[edit]

Hi. I see you tried to trim this {navbox}. It didn't stick, as some want several thousand links in there. Perhaps you'd care to comment at Template talk:Disney#Purpose of a navbox. And see WP:HLIST and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-21/Technology report for info on current methods of implementing navboxes. Alarbus (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jeff Wright (politician)[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Marvel Comics films[edit]

At this point you are being disruptive. You can take it to the talk page or to WP:FILMS if you like, but stop trying to edit war to get your way.

- J Greb (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point you are being disruptive and are causing the edit war to get your way. See Wikipedia:Overlink crisis as why not to have too much lapping navboxes (look for the "Morocco had gained 12 separate navboxes". Animated films are covered in another navbox and were link (as is Marvel Animation directly) to in the Marvel Films see also section in my edit. The animate film link takes them to Marvel Animation Section: Animated Marvel Features which has a list of the animated films and the article has the Marvel animated production navbox. Additional there will most likely more Marvel live action films and animated films. If you set such an overlap standard then "overlink crisis" will return. Thus my use of redunate as a reason to remove them. --Spshu (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


I realize I was wrong on reverting you first before discussing. Will you please accept my humble apology by having a cookie. BTW I hope you at least see some of my point on what I was concerned about and didn't take it the wrong way like J Greb did.

Cookies on a doily.jpg Cookies!

Jhenderson777 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, 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:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Pastoral Provision Redirect[edit]

Spshu, over at Talk:Anglican Use there is a proposal to revert the redirect to Anglican Use of the Pastoral Provision article. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Major and mini-major film studios[edit]

I think you should understand more about how the studios work and ownership by conglomerates.

Look at this old link I found before CBS Films was re-established:

And second, look at the article Major film studio because CBS Films is indeed a mini-major studio among other mini-majors that are listed. Plus, RKO Pictures is still alive and making films.

Let me know if you have anymore questions King Shadeed 13:17, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Um, I found that source and is one that I use on the Major film studio article for Mini-majors section. So please actually read the filmbug link. As far as looking at the article to prove the article? Sorry that isn't how it works around here. Spshu (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Spshu. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Digital subchannels[edit]

July 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to WVIR-DT3, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeutralhomerTalk • 21:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC) 21:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me make this as clear as I can. A user, alot like you, was blocked yesterday for "edit warring, WP:OWN issues and WP:BATTLE" and "doing vs. seeking consensus". That is going to be you as you have tried to get consensus, you were turned down, you come back 2 months later with this fun little page and more edit-warring. If you would like to be blocked as well, continue down the same path, otherwise, move onto something new. - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Regarding your decision to label digital subchannels (many of which I created out of recognition of their increasing occurrence) as not meeting Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, I assure you that they do. Obviously, there may be a digital subchannel that is associated with a specialty "diginet" such as This TV and Me-TV that does not originate any local programming. However, I assume those added with new affiliation agreements with a big four television network (in markets lacking a major network affiliate) should be considered as important as a primary digital network station. While I will not resort to edit warring with the physical removal of the labels, I nicely urge you to consult an article's talk page first (or feel free to start one) on those pages that you would like to consider making changes (i.e. fundamental reasons why a page should or should not be created and basic article formatting). Personally, I think article talk pages are underutilized and editors simply choose to "revert now and ask questions later". I, for one, would gladly begin to practice what I preach here. Strafidlo (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Alot of the digital subchannel is no more than a duplicate of the station article with affiliate network and the digital subchannel changed. As for the big four or minor tv nets affiliation on digital subchannels, it is probable notable enough to make in the TV stations article with a nonprimary source. It has been discussed repeatly at TVS (see below). Second, do you have two articles for a car dealer that adds a new auto franchise? Or is there an article for grocery store chains for every product or product group that they sell? Or does a station that had during the analog era a secondary affiliations have a second article on the secondary affiliation? No to both. The TV station just has more ways to divide up channel from just a time schedule (scheduling a secondary affiliation late at night or on weekends) to multiplexing the digital channel into subchannels and displaying the secondary affiliation on a subchannel. Similar to a car dealership adding another or more lot space then carving them up into areas for the new brand. Given that most of the articles are not sources under the notability and verifiable rules, I can redirect with out any notice as is.

Only Warning[edit]

I have went through and rollbacked all of the blanketing of articles with GNG templates, near-vandalism deletion of information on pages and merging, all without consensus. I am tired of your running roughshod around the rules, so if you retemplate any of the subchannel pages, you will be blocked. If you mass delete tons of information from an article, you will be blocked. If you merge articles without discussion, you will be blocked. If you do anything without reading the rules first and getting consensus, you will be blocked. If you can do any of those things, guessed will be blocked. Between you and DreamMcQueen, your going around the rules to serve your own agendas is going to stop.

Straighten up, fly right, or...well, be blocked. Consider this your only warning. - NeutralhomerTalk • 06:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the notability of subchannels with unique programming to show there is consensus for them, you may comment here. - NeutralhomerTalk • 06:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I gave you a chance, you edit warred yet again. You have been taken to ANI. - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

NBC California Nonstop 3RR[edit]

Your recent editing history at NBC California Nonstop shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you 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. You are also near 3RR on numerous other articles. NeutralhomerTalk • 00:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 00:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Consider the above a blanket warning for all pages you are currently engaged in edit-wars on. - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


We are not doing this again, you didn't get consensus on three seperate talk pages now, you don't have consensus, you have moved into disruptive editing and a slow-moving content dispute where only you are disputing the content. Stop now. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Listen to yourself and stop now. You have been told repeatly that you are misinterpreting the essay. No administrator took on the ANI. Stop threating me. Spshu (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
How about you listen to yourself. You continue to bring this back up after letting is rightly die off, after another "no consensus" vote, after a month or so. You have gotten "no consensus" votes at Talk:WNEM-DT2, ANI, and the thread at WP:TVS just died out with you as the final edit. Only you are continously bringing this up, beating the dead horse. It was dead after the vote at Talk:WNEM-DT2, it was really dead when the TVS thread died the first time around, it was decomposing after the ANI thread and when the TVS thread died the second time around, the horse was just bones. Bury the horse and move on. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh and stalking my edits...not going to get you any brownie points. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I end up having to beating the dead horse because fail to understand that this issue has been decided repeatly against your position and your continuing to edit war over the issue. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow, could you walk into your bathroom and find a mirror....cause you just discribed yourself. Dude, you fail to understand that when you don't have consensus, you don't continue editing the way you are. You don't have it. You never have. So, you need to stop or you are going to be blocked. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
You think cause it is removed and "out of sight, out of mind" that it changes anything? It doesn't, you still don't have consensus. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

←There you go, since you just want to try to rub it in my nose so bad. Just because you project your own faults on me. Instead it will remain as a monument of you poor boorish behavior. Spshu (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Marvel Universe[edit]

Why did you change Marvel Universe back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milomilk (talkcontribs) 00:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As in the edit summary, WP's notability requirement was not met, ie. 2 source articles by 3rd party news source pimarily about the Marvel Universe TV block. One of your sources is about the comic title Hulk becoming Hulk and Agents of SMASH, thus is not even primarily about the animated series of the same name. Nor was the other article about the Marvel U TV block on Disney XD. Avengers Assemble and Hulk and Agents of SMASH are not even confirm to be on Disney XD much less as a part of the Marvel U TV block, while that is the common assumption it has not been reported as such. As wikipedians we must not assume and go by what the reliable source say. --Spshu (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted discussion[edit]

Why do you have deleted my message in your talk page? I saw the discussion. Even there is consensus, the name Italo-Albanian still remains incorrect. --Prodebugger (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It was moved to your talk page were the discussion began instead of spliting the discussion thread. Second, stating it is incorrect doesn't make it correct. --Spshu (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You are right, without any source, it still remains a personal statement. I will look for official sources. --Prodebugger (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page Posts[edit]

Do not, for ANY circumstances, remove any post that was not by you as you have done here. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, that was my fault, not Spshu's. See my subsequent edit summary:[3]
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I was just about to come here and apologize for the above warning, but you beat me. Spshu, my apologizes on the goof up and I am striking the above warning. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't except your apology as it was to reverse your editing of my post there. Spshu (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I am guessing you mean "accept" and that's your choice, no skin off my back. - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

NBC Owned Television Stations[edit]

I noticed the NBC Owned Television Stations article you been working on at User:Spshu/Sandbox3. It looks good and has more than enough references to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I think it's about time to move it to the NBC Owned Television Stations page. Powergate92Talk 02:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I though it was time too similar to my attempt to retag digital subchannels for being unnotable, but trigered Neutralhomer's edit warring opposition again. King Shadeed seems to be a obstructionist just like Neutralhomer, as I have problems with him on Template:Film Studio and Major film studio on top of the NBCUniversal Television Group article. The NBCU TV Group seems to be a temporary grouping just for executive responsibility based on current NBCU corporate executives responsibility indicates that the TV Group doesn't seem to exist any more. So the TV Group article might be correctly: NBC Broadcasting, NBC Owned Television Stations, NBC Entertainment, or less likely NBCUniversal News Group or NBC Sports Group as they all have parts of NBCU TV Group. Shadeed seems to be stuck in 2004. If you still think so, I will go ahead and move it. --Spshu (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Why don't both you and Powergate92 do a search on this page, Spshu. NBCUniversal Television Group still exists as the name is used on two executives. Every major company have their own television group: Sony, Disney-ABC, Warner Bros., etc. King Shadeed 1:35, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
Those are marketing titles for cross-units use as the Executive Vice President, NBCUniversal Television Group Publicity covers communications for NBC Entertainment, NBCUniversal Television Studio, NBCUniversal Television Distribution and NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment. The two titles are marketing titles not unit head titles. That supports my point these were title only in existance to indicate that they oversee something for more then a single unit. Just because other major company has their own TV Group doesn't mean that NBC has or must retain that structure. --Spshu (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
They do so retain that structure. The NBCUniversal Television Group consists of: Universal Television, NBCUniversal Television Distribution, Universal Cable Productions, Comcast Entertainment Studios, NBCUniversal International Television (and its international owned companies), etc., and three in-name-only divisions: Universal Talk Television, NBC Studios, and Universal Network Television. So don't say that the group ceased to exist if they have all of those companies. Furthermore, if the name didn't exist anymore, then why is it mentioned under two executives?? King Shadeed 23:45, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
Spshu: Per what I said above, I think it's time to be bold and move it to the article namespace. Powergate92Talk 03:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
King Shadeed: I didn't say NBCUniversal Television Group doesn't still exists. In fact, I actually said at Talk:NBCUniversal Television Group#NBC Nonstop "a page for NBCUniversal Television Group I found from BusinessWeek says under "Company Overview:" "NBC Universal Television Group operates as a television production and distribution company.""[4] It's just NBC Owned Television Stations is not part of NBCUniversal Television Group. Powergate92Talk 03:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I said that NBCUniversal TV Group doesn't exist any more and may have been an temporary alignment of business units based on what NBCU's CEO felt needed greater coordination and had an executive up to the task of managing them. profile for the NBCU TV Group still lists Zucker as CEO of the Group as we all know he became CEO of NBCU. It looks from that page itself that the NBCU TV Group was split up into atleast NBC Broadcasting and NBC Entertainment with the article about "NBC Universal TV Entertainment Chairman Jeff Gaspin to Leave", not to mention all the other realignments after the Comcast taking over control bring realignment including NBC Sports Group and NBC News Group.
King Shadeed: as I pointed out that one of the executive have cross unit responsibilities thus the term "NBU TV Group" is a short hand for all the units under the marketing position which includes NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment. The Chief Marketing Officer, NBCU TV Group position webpage also indicates the existance of the NBC Agency, which I can infer is a marketing support unit of NBC, thus the marketing positions don't necessarily belong to the units given in their title -- it is just their assignment. And you are wrong on Universal Cable Productions, the article source for that unit indicates that it reports to the NBCU Cable Entertainment & Studio head. Also check out the NBC News Group executive as that shows the Peacock Productions executives as part of that Group. --Spshu (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Then where is your evidence, Spshu saying it doesn't exist anymore? King Shadeed 2:55, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

←Where is your evidence that it still exists, King Shadeed? Your own "proof" is to latch on to two marketing executive titles and ignore the presents of two chairs for NBC Entertainment and NBC Broadcasting and that the page is for NBC ENTERTAINMENT not NBCU TV Group. Neither person's job description in their bio indicates that they jointly run NBCU TV Group but that they report directly to NBCU's CEO.Spshu (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A television group is a television group. And I asked you first where is your evidence saying it doesn't exist anymore. Both you and Powergate92 both speculate saying that it doesn't exist anymore. The name wouldn't exist anymore if two executives under NBC's OWN sites said so. So much for your skeptics. Nice try Spshu and Powergate92. King Shadeed 20:53, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
Again I didn't say it doesn't exist anymore. Anyway I just did a Google search and found a press release from NBCUniversal dated August 29, 2012 that says "NBCUniversal Television Consumer Products Group manages all global ancillary television business endeavors for the NBCUniversal Television Group, including third-party home entertainment distribution, consumer products, musical soundtracks, special markets projects and the NBCUniversal Online Store."[5] So yes, as of August it still exist. Powergate92Talk 05:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Once again, King Shadeed, your own "evidence" doesn't support your position, marketing executives are not line executives but support executives thus doesn't prove that such a unit exits. As the TV Group could just be a short hand for the combination of units that they have responsibility for in that support position within the Marketing/Publicity department and that may be the case of the NBCU TV Consumer Products Group press release as it may not have been change along with the recent realignment yet (or they feel no need to). So, the onus is on you, not me. Just repeating your position of other media conglomerates have them there for NBCU must have them is false. Powergate92, I believe that King Shadeed is refering to the fact that you don't consider the NBC O&O Stations as a part of NBCU TV Group that you have concluded that the NBCU TV Group doesn't exist because most media conglomerates' TV Groups contain their O&O Stations. He seems to be locked into a preset notion of a "TV Group" amongst other ideas and will not change his mind. For example, dispite the article source indicating that Universal Cable Production (UCP) was spun out of Universal TV and place in the NBCU Cable Entertainment and Studio unit group, UCP is still listed as a division of NBCU TV Group. Spshu (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected for the final time, NBCUniversal Television Group still exists. You didn't provide any evidence stating it doesn't exist anymore, but I did since it's still ongoing.

There's no point on moving the page to NBC Entertainment since that's a different division. This discussion is over. King Shadeed 20:26, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Zucker and Marks are marketing personal and are not line executive, which doesn't prove the existance of NBCU TV Group as pointed out. John Miller's full title is "Chief Marketing Officer, NBC Universal Television Group, NBCUniversal" shows that it a NBCUniversal title indicating his responsibility not a NBCU TV Group title. With Rebecca Marks, we have contridictory bios' listed title Executive Vice President, Publicity, NBC Entertainment at and Executive Vice President, NBCUniversal Television Group Publicity at NBCU Media Village. No you cannot cherry pick your sources.
Two, All the GE's page on Jeff Zucker proves is that Zucker was in charge of NBCU TV Group from ("had served") December 2005 to February 2007 when appointed CEO of NBCUniversal (and is not the currently CEO of NBCU, Stephen B. Burke is. If still exists why is it so hard for you to find a source for who is the line (not marketing) executive(s) currently in charge of the NBCU TV Group? Spshu (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Because you still fail to read on who is in charge. Nothing has changed according to NBCUniversal's website. The subject is closed. King Shadeed 23:32, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

←The SUBJECT IS NOT CLOSED nor can you declare it closed. As my last post showed I did "read on who is in charge". Marketing is a support function in most companies and thus not in charge. You continue to fail to read and conprend my posts. --Spshu (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Marvel Studios[edit]

Your recent editing history at Marvel Studios 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. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The edit warring report at User:Spshu reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Warned) has been closed with a warning to you. If you engage in any continued reverting that is not supported by consensus you may be blocked. An RfC is now open on the talk page and you should try to persuade the other parties there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Spshu. You have new messages at VernoWhitney's talk page.
Message added 17:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VernoWhitney (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi, the current article isn't anything like the previous article (which was mostly an ad) and does attest notability with references that are dated after the previous deletion discussion. If someone wants to list it for deletion again, I can't stop it, but as it stands, it's fine by me. --Bobet 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Station Venture Operations[edit]

REMEMBER, KNSD is an NBC O&O since NBC holds a majority stake. O&Os and affiliates are different. If you need proof, please refer to the Form-10K I have used as a reference. Thanks. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg 00:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Reminder" is not a good name for a section, please use the actual topic under discussion. As you are not reminding of any thing as WP works on sources not one's memory. Second the Form-10K is a primary source although is review by the Government, so is not a preferred source. You also make it hard to verify your source as you did not specify the page. Third, there is a "sub"-article about Station Venture Operations, LP that is wiki-linked, so as to explain the ownership better instead of duplicating the information in all three articles, this is the advantage of a wikipedia. Spshu (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at KNSD, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg 22:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If you bother to read, the information and reason was listed above in the "Reminder" section that was renamed to Station Venture Operations. Spshu (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm settling this at WP:AN3. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg 22:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:Spshu reported by User:Fairlyoddparents1234. Thank you.

Edit warring on KNSD[edit]

Your recent editing history at KNSD 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.

Please also note that this unacceptable behaviour has already been reported to WP:ANI (link here). So if you would like to challenge this claim, you may go there and post your views. Thank you.

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg 23:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg 23:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see the result of this 3RR case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive200#User:Spshu reported by User:Fairlyoddparents1234 (Result: Both warned). If you continue to revert the article before a consensus is reached you may be blocked. This is your third time at WP:AN3 since July 1 which is not a good omen. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


You left a lot of serious errors at KXAS-TV; did you forget to use show preview? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg 22:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits at NBC part-O&Os[edit]

Do you like what I did to KXAS-TV and KNSD? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) Megaphone-Vector.svg 21:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Topps Comics[edit]

Hi, Spshu. Hope you're well; haven't heard from you in a while. I'm curious about the notability tag you placed at Topps Comics. As I wrote on the talk page, it was a well-established company that produced a large number of high-profile products by major comics creators and featuring many major licensed properties. I'd urge you to place a rationale on the talk page, since without it, there's no way to address any specific concerns. Honestly, on the face of it, Im perplexed as to why the tag is there, and without a rationale people can respond to, it doesn't really stand on its own. Hoping to hear from you. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

MLG Productions[edit]

I see that you are about to remove the MLG Productions article. I just wanted to have a solo article about it. TheWikiMan95 Mario Saenz 16:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a sufficent reason. You must defend the article on its talk page. --Spshu (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, in 2004, Lionsgate and Marvel made a deal in which they would produce eight films together, therefore forming MLG Productions. They just finished their deal, so the company is now defunct. TheWikiMan95 Mario Saenz 16:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I just redirected the MLG Productions article to Marvel Animation#Marvel Animated Features if that makes you happy. TheWikiMan95 (talk) Mario Saenz 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-officeconnect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The Muppets[edit]

You've recently been adding the Star Wars character Yoda to The Muppets template. I want to clarify why your edits are incorrect and have been undone.

1. The template is used for The Muppets intellectual property, which is devoted to The Muppet Show characters and properties owned by Disney. In other words, the article is used to serve as centralized location for articles related only to that particular franchise.
2. The subject of Yoda.
a. Yoda was designed by Stuart Freeborn at Elstree Studios in conjunction with George Lucas' ILM studio during the production of The Empire Strikes Back.
b. For the character's execution, Lucas consulted Jim Henson, a natural choice, considering his foray in puppetry. Henson, instead suggested one of his own puppeteers, Frank Oz, for the job. The fact that Henson was consulted and that Oz was a simultaneous performer for both The Muppets and the character of Yoda was coincidental and exists as the only connection between Yoda and The Muppets.
c. The media at the time, (and occasionally still do, mostly as tongue-in-cheek) refer to the character informally as a "Muppet" due to Oz's involvement.
d. Yoda's "status" is NOT affected by Disney's recent Lucasfilm acquisition. Much like Princess Leia isn't becoming a Disney Princess.
3. "The Muppets", "the Muppets" and "creatures"
a. The characters designed by Henson's Muppet Workshop (that is; The Muppet Show, Sesame Street and Fraggle Rock) were all considered "Muppets" at the time of their creation, due to their similarities in design, anatomy, construction and execution. However, the characters developed for The Muppet Show are referred to as "The Muppets" and still are, now that their owner Disney, owns the trademark for the term "Muppet". As a result, the Sesame Street characters and Fraggles (owned separately by Sesame Workshop and The Jim Henson Company, respectively), lost the right to use the term, unless given permission to by Disney.
b. Characters designed by Henson's other workshop facility; Jim Henson's Creature Shop, are referred to as "creatures" and operate differently from their Muppet counterparts.

I hope this message clarifies the inconsistencies that were evident in your edits. Thank you. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 1. The Muppet template wasn't limit itself to the "The Muppet Show" franchises. This is appearently your own view of it.
2a. You give no such source for this and there isn't one in the Yoda article for Freeborn's creating Yoda.
2b. Henson's Company as Oz was assign to Yoda in the creation of Yoda.
2c. They called it a muppet do to Henson's involvement in its creation that has been the designation for Henson's puppets. It is your personal opinion about it being tongue in cheek. 2d. Of course, Yoda status doesn't change, it is a muppet in common usage. But with the Lucasfilm purchase it can be consider a "Muppet".
3. This all (below) came out when Big Bird was brought up in the 2012 Presidential Campaign. 3a. No Disney refers to the as Disney's The Muppets. Sesame Workshop purhased the right to call their muppets Muppets from EM TV and isn't subject to Disney; the trademark was split.
3b. Incorrect, muppets are created by Jim Henson's Creature Shop as that is where Sesame Workshop gets their Muppets as they have no in house creation facilities. Spshu (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

1. You state that the template is not designated for just The Muppet Show characters. Why don't you take the time to examine it again? You'll see that it lists characters that are only from The Muppet Show. Also, films and television specials that include those characters are only included. It was agreed upon on the template's talk page without any disagreements or opposing conflicts. Sesame Street has its own templates here and here. Any other Henson properties, such as Fraggle Rock are listed here.
2a. Excuse me for not providing a source in proving that Stuart Freeborn was the designer for Yoda. I believed that was common knowledge due to it being heavily documented in Star Wars documentaries. He based Yoda's facial design on his own likeness and Albert Einstein. Here's one, another one, a video interview and a a BBC audio documentary. If none of those suits you well, then the following is an excerpt from an interview with Frank Oz himself stating that Jim Henson did NOT make him.
"From then on, I was the one who kind of put all the elements of Yoda together, and although Jim didn't make Yoda, George and he had an understanding that they would exchange technology information. George would give to Jim and Jim would give some of his people to George to help. Wendy Froud helped out a little bit with the character and two other people from Jim's company worked the cables for me."
Now, please provide your citations proving all of this otherwise.
2b. It's not clear what you're attempting to state there.
2c. I've already made light of this in 2a, but I'll reiterate. They called it a Muppet because a Muppet puppeteer was performing him. It's that simple. Besides his notoriety in puppetry, Lucas consulted Jim Henson due to the close proximity of Henson's workshop to the location where the majority of The Empire Strikes Back was being produced; London. Henson suggested Oz and producer Gary Kurtz was dispatched to inform Oz of Yoda. The Yoda puppet did have similar operative designs to Muppets; they both used rods, both are operated hand-wise and both are operated with assistance from video cameras for visual reference. Besides consultation, Jim Henson did not have a direct involvement with Yoda's characterization, design or literal construction. It was Stuart Freeborn who designed him, Oz operated him, whereas Lucas and Oz created his characterization, such as his unique syntax. For added perspective, here's a New York Times article that was written after Henson's death. It describes Henson's career and the characters he created throughout his lifetime. Never does it state or even mention Yoda. If Yoda was created by Henson, as you allege, wouldn't you think that such a well-known character as Yoda would be mentioned by major print media company in an article published after his death?
3 and below. One of the stipulations that Disney permitted was the continued use of the word Muppet by Sesame Workshop. Sesame Workshop aren't freely allowed to use the word whenever they can; they use it where they're allowed. That was what I meant when I wrote; "unless given permission to by Disney." Sesame Workshop uses the term via a licence. Providing me with a link to their general website proves nothing on the trademark.
The Sesame Street Muppets are still made by The Jim Henson Company's Puppet Workshop. Disney's Muppets, however, are made by the unaffiliated and independent Puppet Heap, as evidenced in their "About" section of their website.
There exists a definitive line between Muppets and Creatures as stated by Jim Henson himself in this transcript of a telephone interview he did. Yoda is neither, but for the sake of argument, let's say Yoda was designed by Henson. Thus, according to Henson's own words, his nature would categorize as a "creature and not a "Muppet". Also, if the Muppets and creatures are all the same, then by your logic, we should consider the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as Muppets, should we not? Or how about Babe? The animals from Dr. Dolittle?
Look, I'm not trying to seek out a conflict or have this lead to anything larger than it already is, but the fact of the matter is; including Yoda in The Muppets template is simply incorrect and that's what I came here to rationally speak about. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
1. Included in the template is Bear in the Blue House, Fraggle Rock show, The Land of Gorch, etc. none of which are Muppet Show Muppets. Say again how can you say it is just about The Muppet Show?
2a. It was common knowledge that Henson's company was involved not this other individual. And no it was never "heavily documented in Star Wars documentaries" as I try to watch them. We would be having this argument if it was. There for, a source would have been clearly needed. Plus, Hensen surely was not making all the Muppets himself, who do you think is doing now at the Creature Shop for Sesame Workshop's Sesame Street? Henson is 6 feet under. It does not say who Oz and Stuart Freeborn worked for as others have contracted Lucasfilms' ILM for special effects. I asssume from all the Star Wars documentaries that Lucas gave the over all design with Hensen Production physical built him.
2b. Duh, Jim Henson doesn't handle all Muppets all the time or who in the world are the muppeters. Lucasfilms contract with Henson's company to provide someone as Oz worked there.
2c. Stating your opinion again doesn't make it so. It just looks like your trying to be an ass. Many major papers make mistakes, they may have seen it trival as primary Oz was involved on Henson's company's behalf. What no mention of Land of Gorch or Kermit's nephew, Scooter, Animal or other of a number of Muppets as its suppose to list "the characters he created throughout his lifetime".
3. That sipulation is from the EM.TV deal not something that Disney grants or was forced to grant. The EM.TV deal with Sesame Workshop predates the sale of the Henson Company back to the Henson family and the sale of the Muppet Show Muppets & BiBH to Disney. If it was allow with Disney premission only then the Sesame Street website would have to indicate that "Muppets is a trademark of Disney used with premission." or some similar language. Otherwise it could become deluted or genericized like xerox or klennex.
"The Sesame Street Muppets are still made by The Jim Henson Company's Puppet Workshop." That is what I basically said to counter "b. Characters designed by Henson's other workshop facility; Jim Henson's Creature Shop, are referred to as "creatures" and operate differently from their Muppet counterparts." Don't know why you brough up Puppet Head or repeating what I say to debunk you except to torpedo your argument.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Babe and Dr. Dolittle don't use puppets.
"Look, I'm not trying to seek out a conflict or have this lead to anything larger than it already is, but the fact of the matter is; including Yoda in The Muppets template is simply incorrect." No, Yoda's inclusion in the "Muppet" template is not "simply incorrect". And no you did not come here to "rationally speak about." since you did not and have even contradicted your orginal statements. Spshu (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Before I say anything regarding this topic I want to, as politely as I can make it seem, address something to you: Please write more legibly and clearly. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it's difficult for me to understand and decipher what you are trying to say when your writing is filled with spelling and punctuation errors. Often times, you misspell specific names or write in fragmented sentences that make it seem that you're not firmly behind what you're arguing. It's not a peeve of mine, or an insult, it's just a suggestion to ease the difficulties in reading your writing.
Aside from that:
  • That one article I provided, that records Frank Oz's own words should be the basis for disproving your thoughts on Yoda. It cannot get more basic than asking the performer himself about his own character.
  • Everything you have just stated in counter me is unverified and generalized. I have provided clear and adequate references concerning the details I have brought up but you have yet to show anything disproving me. Show me a source that explicitly says "it is common knowledge that Henson's company was involved not this other individual". Those are YOUR words and since you've told me that my opinion "doesn't make it say so", then please find a source that proves your words aren't your opinion. If not, then your conjecture is moot.
  • Find any documentary about the production of The Empire Strikes Back that does not cover Yoda. Here's a time coded link to a very-well known documentary produced by Lucasfilm, called Empire of Dreams. In that allotted portion, the narrator distinctly says: "Designed by Stuart Freeborn, and operated by Muppeteer Frank Oz". I don't know how else to prove you that verified fact.
  • The Bear in the Big Blue House characters remained in the template because according to the consensus on the talk page all productions owned by Disney's The Muppets Studio were to be kept. The Land of Gorch segments are probably there due to lack of voice. There hasn't been a discussion regarding the inclusion of the Saturday Night Live sketches. So they were kept. If you wish to have it removed, voice it on the talk page.
  • Puppet Heap Workshop is a third-party company that builds the Muppets for Disney. They are given credit in the 2011 film's credits and for the construction of Walter. According to their website, they also claim to have Sesame Workshop as a client. If that's true, then Sesame Workshop must not be working with The Jim Henson Company anymore. Now, I can't say more on that, since it's original research, so I'll leave that point alone.
  • "That is what I basically said to counter b." You do realize that in an argument, people can agree with the person they're arguing with, correct? I was partially in agreement with you on that one point.
  • "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Babe and Dr. Dolittle don't use puppets." Jim Henson's Creature Shop was responsible for the special effects in those films. You know, the same division that you purport is the same as the Muppet workshop? The titular puppet turtles for instance were built by that company. They weren't real or CGI, they were puppets articulated by human performers inside and outside the suits.
Before you respond, analyze and prove your claim that "Yoda is a Muppet created by Jim Henson" with verified, reputable sources. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Your problem is that you don't even know what your arguments are. Then when I responsed against them you have no clue. You have not been polite at all.
I have general logic to disprove your points and you can not seem to follow. Just because Oz is told to handle Yoda instead of Henson doesn't mean Henson Associates isn't involved as you quoted: "George would give to Jim and Jim would give some of his people to George to help." Clearly Henson's Company was a contractor of sorts. I don't know how you figure that only Jim Henson build and run Muppets are Muppets. So what no new muppets can be made since Henson died. That Oz article just indicated that he was introduced to the character. You seem to have drawn your own conclusions thus do not read the article objectively. My objections are that you have not provided "clear and adequate references". Your own Oz article does not clearly definitely declares that Henson Company had nothing to do with Yoda. The Oz article could mean that Henson turned down Lucas request to run Yoda personally and assigned Oz.
Bear in the Big Blue House and The Land of Gorch, etc. was brought up to counter your position that the template is only for Muppet Show's Muppets. I don't mind them being there.
Empire of Dreams stating "Designed by Stuart Freeborn, and operated by Muppeteer Frank Oz" doesn't disprove that Henson Company was or was not involve in making Yoda.
Why do you keep on going on about Puppet Heap Workshop? Your original point was the Henson's Creature Shop doesn't make Muppets and I debunk that. Now you say we agreed!?!?!?
Just because Henson's Creature Shop makes Muppets/puppets doesn't mean that they don't any thing else. Just like Lucasfilms is more than just Star Wars (like Indiana Jones).
I did not claim "Yoda is a Muppet created by Jim Henson". You are the one that keeps on pushing that Henson MUST design and OPERATE Yoda to make it a Muppet. I claimed Yoda is a muppet general designed by Stuart Freeborn/Lucasfilms build by Jim Henson Company and run by a Henson muppeteer, Frank Oz. All back up by your sources.
I will not add Yoda back as he is not a Muppet Show Muppet or any misc. Muppets (The Land of Gorch, etc.).Spshu (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You never claimed Yoda was designed by Stuart Freeborn. Do you remember your words; "It was common knowledge that Henson's company was involved not this other individual", which was made to reciprocate my Stuart Freeborn point? To me, that's a polarized viewpoint.
But I assume none of it matters anymore. After all, since you have now agreed, not to add Yoda to the template, there's no reason to continue to butt heads. That was the main and only reason why I came to your talk page to discuss that. Thus, I sincerely thank you for your time and patience :) ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Muppet Performers[edit]

Hi! It looks like you've been challenging the notability of a number of high-profile Muppets performers. I am confused by this, as the two articles I spot-checked both are performers who at a glance easily fulfill the notability guidelines in WP:ENT. I've removed the flag, and put justification on the Talk page. Is there a reason you are doing this? -- Metahacker (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit) Looking at it further, you are also deleting content, including sourced content and references, from these pages with no explanation but "Nota." <a href="">example 1</a>, <a href="">example 2</a>. What reason do you have for this behavior? -- Metahacker (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The notability (Nota.) tag is explanatory. They might meet WP:ENT but is must be supported by major media sources per basic rule: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
Some material were removed do to BLP rules and the standing of the source. Because the IMDB is not consider WP reliable. Some of the source are affiliated with the person or are fan sources.
So what reason do you have for this behavior? Spshu (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Template Discussion:The Muppets[edit]

A discussion is taking place concerning the changes that have been made at Template:The Muppets.

The article will be discussed at Template talk:The Muppets#Shortening names until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and policies and guidelines relevant to Wikipedia. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer[edit]

Christmas tree.svg Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.


Just curious as to what you mean about Walling's religion and such not being confirmed. I posted a link. He attends a United Methodist church; he has offered that much. He doesn't have to officially announce his religion for us to list one at Wikipedia. I also think it's silly you removed his party affiliation. You are being too cute by a half and a bit overly careful/protective for whatever reason. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. N-HH talk/edits 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The last protecting admin advised you against making any further reverts until a consensus was reached. Yet you went ahead and restored your version on 3 January. Please join the discussion at the noticeboard and explain why you should not be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to document the outcome of this thread, Spshu was warned in January 2013 per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive204#User:Spshu reported by User:N-HH (Result: Warned) not to revert again at Duchy of Cornwall unless they received a talk page consensus for their change. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template Kraft Foods Group[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Template:Kraft Foods Group a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. AussieLegend () 08:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Kraft Foods Group was created by copying its content, do to the split of Kraft Foods into Monelez International and Kraft Food Group. As there doesn't seem to be a "split template function", cut and paste is the only way to initial set up one of the templates. However, Monelez stayed at temp:Kraftprods with a new template:Kraft Food Group was created by some one else. While template:Kraft redirected to temp:Kraftprods, thus having two Kraft templates that don't reference Kraft but Monelez. I moved Monelez template to its own name. I have also fixed most of the redirecting going on which you now have reversed, also considered a non-no. This mess was not created by me. Spshu (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
When splitting one template into two, a copy and paste has to be done, as there's no way to split otherwise. In such cases, attribution should be added to the talk pages of the old and new templates using {{split from}} and {{split to}}. The template was split correctly but attribution wasn't added; I've now fixed that. However, when completely moving a template, as appears to have been your intent, the template should not have been cut and pasted, as this doesn't move the talk page or the article history. The entire template needs to be used by following the procedures listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. As there is now an edit history, because of your cut and paste move, it will have to be done using {{RMassist}} using the process at WP:RM/TR. --AussieLegend () 18:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Kanbar Entertainment[edit]

Hi. I am the editor who created the Kanbar Entertainment article and am unsure why you removed the references that you did. According to Wikipedia policy (WP:Primary), primary sources are allowed as long as they are used as references for non-controversial facts, as was the case with the reference and the reference. The reference was a professional magazine, so I can't see why that one would be a problem. The fullecirclestuff blog reference consisted of an interview with the film's director and I had verified its authenticity by including a page from the director's official website where he mentions and links to the interview. I first used this reference on the Hoodwinked! article and before including it there, asked whether it would be acceptable at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I was told that it would probably be okay, and since then Hoodwinked! has passed a Featured Article nomination without anyone opposing the reference.

I would also like to discuss the studio's notability. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:ORG), an organization or company is notable if it has received significant coverage by reliable and independent sources. I feel that the article from Variety about the lawsuit between Kanbar Entertainment and the Weinstein Company is at least one demonstration of "significant coverage". While the studio is not the primary subject of the other references, the guidelines simply state that multiple sources are needed if the subject is not discussed in great depth by any of them. Kanbar Entertainment is mentioned in at least three other independent reliable sources (The Northside magazine, the LA Times blogpost, which was written by a staff writer, and the Tulsa World newspaper). The guidelines don't specify how many sources are needed, and while these four certainly do not constitute a lot of coverage, I do feel that they provide enough coverage. --Jpcase (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Blogs and interview that have claims of some sort of status, landmark event, etc. are not "non-controversial facts". Ie. claim of "...which was one of the first computer-animated films to be entirely independently financed." by the blog interview which is a "landmark event".
You only have one article of significant coverage, the rest as you state only mention Kanbar in passing as the articles are about Hoodwinked! and are not about Kanbar. "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." Spshu (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
If I was using the blog to prove that the film was the first computer-animated film to ever be entirely independently financed, then yes, I think that you would be right. But in this case, all I am saying is that it was one of the first. The film's status as a landmark in independent animation has been noted by professional sources. This article from [6] says that the film may have been "the first independent animated film to be eligible for an oscar", while this article from the same website [7] says that the film made "animation history", doing what had previously been seen as "nearly impossible". I have also seen a professional journalist refer to an article from the Los Angeles Times, which called the film "the first noteworthy indie animated movie", though unfortunately the link that he provided is now dead. I chose to use the blog post instead of any of these, because "indie" is a rather vague term that could be used in a variety of contexts. For example, any Pixar films that were produced before the studio was bought by Disney could be considered "indie". The difference between Pixar and Hoodwinked! is that Disney contributed to the production costs of Pixar's films, while The Weinstein Company only handled distribution for Hoodwinked! The blog post is the only reference that clarifies this point. The other references were not wrong, they simply used the term "indie" in a more casual manner than would be proper for an encyclopedic article. If you feel that it would be better though, I could include the first reference along with the blog reference.
The references to Kanbar Entertainment in the Northside, LA Times, and Tulsa World articles seem more substantial to me than what the guidelines define as "trivial or incidental coverage". Examples that the guidelines give include meeting times, telephone numbers, and notices of facility openings or closings. The Northside reference is an in-depth article about the founder of the company. It details two of the films produced by that studio, the director and release date of one of those films, the box-office gross of the other film, and explains that a sequel to that film was in production at the time. The Tulsa World reference discusses how the directors of Hoodwinked connected with the studio, gives the film's budget, and explains that studio outsourced the animation to the Philippines and India. The LA Times reference gives quite a bit of info on the Hoodwinked! films and discusses the lawsuit between Kanbar Entertainment and The Weinstein Company. Yes, all of these discuss the studio within the context of its films, but in what other context could you discuss a film studio? By talking about a company's product, you are essentially talking about the company itself.
The guidelines seem to specify three different types of references. References that provide substantial coverage, references that do not provide substantial coverage (The guidelines do not say that these references cannot establish notability. Instead they say that multiple of them are needed to establish notability), and references that provide trivial coverage. The Northside, Tulsa World, and LA Times references may not provide "substantial coverage", but again, I certainly do not feel that they fall under "trivial coverage". So if they are in the second category, multiple of them are needed. No specific number is given, but I have provided three. I have also found a second source [8] which would fall under "significant coverage". It was posted on a blog, but that blog is run by a professional journalist, so it meets Wikipedia criteria for a reliable source. --Jpcase (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
You are trying to have inherited notability from Hoodwinked! to Kanbar, which isn't allowed. Reviews are consider trivial. The Northside was about the Founder and a different company; Kanbar Enterainment only got a paragraph, not major coverage in the article (although I was incorrect in removing it as a source).Spshu (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC) (back signing)
The restrictions on inherited notability seem to apply more to people who are associated with the company or other companies that it owns/is owned by. So I agree, that Kanbar Entertainment is not notable just because it is owned by Maurice Kanbar who is notable. Or if The Walt Disney Company decided to buy Kanbar Entertainment, that would not make it notable. But I feel it is different when we are talking about a product of a company. Again, in what other context could one actually talk about a company other than its products? When one talks about a film studio, the main topic they would focus on would be its films. These three references could be more in depth sure, but again the guidelines do not say that references that are not in depth cannot be used to confer notability on a topic. The guidelines simply say that if a reference is not in depth, then multiple references are needed. I have provided three, which granted is not a very high number, but no minimum number is actually specified. More importantly though, I have provided two articles which give significant coverage. --Jpcase (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
One can talk about a company in regards to a deal made, not just the product. For example, Kanbar making a multi-picture distribution deal, signed a production deal with a major or the converse a smaller production company signs with Kanbar, arranges major financing (for the films, lines of credits, new investors, etc.), acquired another company or made a newsworthy hire (hires away a heavy hitter at one of the majors or hires 100s of employees). Kanbar launches a new unit or acquires an unit in: TV, direct to video, online, video gaming, books, etc. Spshu (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Still though, I feel that when an article talks about a product, it is by extent talking about the company, as long as the company is mentioned in the article. The Northside, Tulsa World, and LA Times articles do provide more substantial coverage than what is defined in the guidelines as trivial and again, there are two articles that talk in-depth about the company. Kanbar Entertainment certainly is not one of the more notable topics on Wikipedia, but I still feel that it is notable in its own way and that it meets the notability criteria. --Jpcase (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I have found two more articles that provide significant coverage. The first [9] is from Animation Magazine and while I am unsure whether the second [10] would be considered a blog post, it was written by a published film critic. So do you feel that four articles providing significant coverage is enough? Also, do you have any objections to me re-inserting the,, and references? Again, I am willing to include the article along with the fullecirclestuff interview if you feel that it is necessary. --Jpcase (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for having taken the time to discuss this with me. I am going to go ahead and re-insert the references back into the article and remove the notability tag. If you have any objections, just let me know. :) --Jpcase (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Walt Disney Animation Studios[edit]

While it is apparent your good intention to give the Walt Disney Animation Studios article a superior quality, you must be careful when doing this. There was excessive use of "citation needed", in many cases absurd, as in the first paragraph of the 1950s section (now fixed).

It is also important to prevent unnecessary information in the article. A previous version of Circle 7 Animation history in the article made ​​it seem that the studio had some connection with Walt Disney Animation Studios, while the only thing that connected the two studios was that the C7A employees moved to WDAS. This will be fixed.

Another issue was the removal of the introduction paragraph of the article. Although the second paragraph contained duplicate information, remotion of the third paragraph was completely wrong. There was no duplicated information in it and was consistent with what was proposed by the Article development and The perfect article official guides. This will also be fixed.

Anyway, keep doing the good job, but taking care to avoid excess, unnecessary information and things that are not really connected to WDAS.

Tim Week (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Tim Week

You are incorrect Cirle 7 as source in the article is connected to Walt Disney Animation Studios. "Disney animation chief David Stainton, to whom the sequels unit reports, declined to comment on its plans." Thus clearly showing that Circle 7 was a division of Disney Feature Animation.
Do not come here and lecture me. You have repeately remove source material from article. Spshu (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

At the news that you've linked is very clear that "the unit, which is being kept separate from Disney's main feature animation division". C7A was never any subdivision or studio of WDAS, the only thing that once linked the history of the studios was that the C7A have been closed and the employees moved to WDAS, nothing more.

And my complaint about the removal of content was only related to the fact that this occurred during the introductory paragraphs of the article, something vital for the presentation of the studio for a reader. I will make the restoration of vital parts, then disregard what I said before.

Tim Week (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Tim Week

NO, I quoted and linked it directly for you that C7A was a division of WDFA. C7A reported to WDFA's head thus was a division of WDFA. Spshu (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Nintendo characters[edit]

What criterion are you using to consider that articles with dozens of references from reliable sources do not meet the WP:GNG? Diego (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  • "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention"
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources"
    • " 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact"
Basically, no mainstream news coverage (New Times, ABC News, etc.) or scholarly journal article directly about the characters. --Spshu (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstand the WP:GNG if you think that mainstream news or journal articles are required to provide notability (see footnote 2) -although the magazines referenced in the article *are* mainstream in the genre of video games. Neither direct coverage is required, and that is right there in the first notability criterion. Diego (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You must be kidding me. Taylor & Francis Ltd is not "any one self-publishing a book". Diego (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I just quoted it "Significant coverage" ("first notability criterion" as you called it), but yes, direct coverage is required and that is the first notabilty criterion, otherwise it is trival coverage. Mainstream media or expertise document is more precise perhaps. But the video magazines are not mainstream ie. general purpose news source. Other wise, there would be no such thing as WP:GNG. Yes, they might be reliable sources for those article that other wise meet notability requirements, otherwise, we would have articles on the level 4 zombie in some obscure first person shooter.
"Loguidice, Bill; Matt Barton (2009). Vintage Games: An Insider Look at the History of Grand Theft Auto, Super Mario, and the Most Influential Games of All Time. Focal Press." Don't see Taylor & Francis (or their imprint), there, or in the other book on Birdo. Spshu(talk) 22:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Then you're not looking very hard. "Focal Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis". Diego (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

←Still, from the book's name it isn't primarily about Birdo. Spshu (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

can Disney brought HIT Entertainment?[edit]

When Mattel and Fisher-Price is no longer own HIT Entertainment next year. Disney acquires this company and deal is due to be finalized in February 2014. Sent me a message please and contact Disney if you can. SmallSoldiers123 (talk)

I see no news article or press release from Disney about such a purpose, until there is we can not report it as being so. Disney was one of the companies contacted to bid on HiT when Mattel won the bid, so I doubt Disney will be owning HiT soon unless there are financial problems at Mattel. Spshu (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Archie Comics[edit]

" [article] at Don Markstein's Toonopedia" is the consensus format across WikiProject Comics. Its consistent use marks a consensus. It's important to have stylistic consistency, so I've restored the citation to the way it's generally seen throughout WPC. I hope you understand and can go along with this standardized form. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't a cite format at WikiProject Comics. Spshu (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Not every single thing is covered there. This format is used throughout WikiProject Comics. I could provide you with, say, 25 examples. Would that be enough to convince you it is de facto format and that we should be consistent? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edits at MLPFIM[edit]

You are removing factual content under your claims of removing FB and Twitter links. For one, FB and Twitter are acceptable SPS sources if we can verify the owner. But the other details you are removing are factually correct and so your edits appear to be completely improper. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Twitter and Facebook is a blog type website and are not allowed. So your claims are false that they are acceptable sources. The other was unsourced over long article intro factual or not. Spshu (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
First, you removed a paragraph out of the lead. Leads do not require sources as long as the points stated are sourced later, which is the case here. Second, on sources like Facebook and Twitter, they are not expressively ruled out. Per WP:SPS, as long as 1) we can verify the identity of those publishing the information (in one case, here, Daniel Ingram's FB account) and 2) we're not using it to source anything controversial (the show credits in this case) they are allowable. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The lead was overly long was also a point in cutting it out. But as you point out it needs to be source later, which is not the case looking through the article. "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." indicates that this information isn't overly important being on Facebook. And how it is verified that it is Daniel Ingram's FB account? Spshu (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It certainly is sourced later in the article, and the lead is a proper size for an article of that length. And verification of such accounts are based on long-term watching the accounts and their interaction with the community. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Ingram's website currently redirects to his Twitter profile, which links directly to his Facebook page up at top. That's the main way we can verify that. dogman15 (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Re:Lead, sorry I looked in the wrong sections and over look others.
So what that redirects to twitter profile, etc. that doesn't verify anything. I can have and link to some false FB and Twitter page. Spshu (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Because those of us in the fandom (I know Dogman is too) have interacted with him, and have sufficient assurity of evidence over time this is his account. It's also not a controversial detail. (Similarly, we know Faust's DA account is fyre-flye, long confirmed by the community with her in person).
But more importantly, your edits removed information wholesale when sourced like that. If you thought the source was bad, the information certainly wasn't controversial and the right step would have been to remove and tag with something like {{cn}}. But other details, like removing the line about Pinkie Pie, was completely out of line. You can't hack and slash if you just disagree with the use of sources. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

←No I can if it is not source, I can remove it since they are not proper sources. Spshu (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to believe the information is wrong? (ignoring the sourcing issue?) WP does not require every point to be sourced if the information is not controversial or readily obvious from the information given. You are very much misreading sourcing policy if this is your belief. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Ingram Facebook page claims Ingram is to be credit for the show's music. People have assumed and demand I assume what they want to believe a source says. If is challenged then yes it needs to be sourced.
"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Spshu (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Since the show has credits to say this as well, so it is glaringly obvious. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
But that contradicts "| opentheme = "Friendship Is Magic", performed by Rebecca Shoichet and four others; Lyrics by Lauren Faust". Spshu (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
How is this in any way contradictory? Daniel Ingram is the composer (not the singer or lyricist) for the MLPFIM theme song. This is easily proven by watching the credits of any MLPFIM episode. Unfortunately, I can't link them because of the spam filter. Anyway, it's wrong for you to suggest I haven't been following this discussion closely. There's no reason to believe @fyre_flye isn't Lauren Faust herself and citing her Twitter for her birthday and other information would be allowed per WP:SPS.  █ EMARSEE 19:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
He claims credit for the music, not just as composer which I would assume include being the lyricist. Spshu (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
It isn't allowed per WP:BLP on Faust. There isn't any reason to bevieve either about it being here twitter account. Spshu (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
You are absolutely wrong. As long as editors have reasonably strong assurance that social media accounts are owned by the people that are claimed (which we have here), they can be used to source non-controversial facts. What facts are considered controversial is not things like "who sung what song" but more like a person's opinions or viewpoint on a subject which only that person can clearly state. Twitter and other affirmed sources can be used for non-controversial information as long as the entire article is not built off those or a majority of those. (In other words, they should be there to back up and supplement reliable non-social media sources). --MASEM (t) 21:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

←You cannot confirm it, just your claims as having done so. Twitter is a blog (micro) and are consider unrealible. They are primary source, no original research is allowed here. Spshu (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe I can confirm Masem's claims. See here where Tara Strong (verified account on Twitter) asks her fans to follow Lauren Faust's Twitter account, @fyre_flye.  █ EMARSEE 22:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Further, since WP works on consensus, you can certainly question the validity of the owner of a specific account but realize that the decision will be based on consensus. I suspect if you poised the question if "@fyre_flye" was really Faust's twitter, you would fine an overwhelming assurance that it is hers, and consensus would ride on that. Questioning the validity and what evidence there is for it is fine (and you shouldn't be chastised for doing that via talk pages), but there's nothing outright that says that these can never by verified and thus invalid sources. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you 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. MASEM (t) 20:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability and templates[edit]

I have noticed that you have removed some information from article "Lauren Faust" ([11], [12]). Now, the reasoning is obviously similar to the one you used for the article "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic", discussed above ([13]). However, that discussion concerns content and I would like to make a behavioral point (well, maybe more).

Looking at your last edits I have seen many cases when you removed information without references or with references that you have found insufficient. That didn't happen just in the articles I have mentioned, but also in "Primate (bishop)" ([14]). Now, it is true that all material should have good sources, but I think there are several problems with your approach.

First, the removals look rather hasty. In none of these cases the information looked obviously wrong. Couldn't the information without sources get Template:Citation needed? And the information with suspicious sources - Template:Unreliable source? And the information which is not confirmed by the given source - Template:Not in source? And then, after the template stays for some time - a week, a month, a year - the information could be removed without the conflicts. Or it could be sourced instead. As you can see, doing otherwise can end up less well...

Second, it would have been preferable to explain your reasoning. While in some cases it could be guessed easily, the edit summaries saying "remove FB & twitter source info; shorten opening;" ([15]) cannot be easily understood to say that you think that it is not certain that the authorship of the sources hasn't been demonstrated ([16]). A post on the talk page would have made your reasoning much clearer.

By the way, you should also participate in the discussions that already exist. In case of "Primate (bishop)" you have reverted User:Irish Melkite ([17]) without answering him on the talk page ([18])...

Third, you should revert less... [19], [20], [21], [22]... More discussion, less reverting.

Finally, some more effort to find references could prove beneficial. For example, it was not that hard to find out that "Nostra Aetate" of the Second Vatican Council ([23]) has a signature (among others, of course): "† Ego ANDREAS ROHRACHER, Archiepiscopus Salisburgensis, Primas Germaniae."... That would be a very good indicator that Archbishop of Salzburg is "Primas Germaniae", wouldn't you agree..?

So, I hope that things will get calmer soon and everything will be solved. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yet, none of them agree to place such any type of sourcing notice instead. Discuss seems to be the ambush around here, such that little editing gets done and poor sourcing continues. The behavior issue is they don't seem to care about their sources or having any to begin with and pretend I am the problem. Don't forget that under WP:BLP keeps living person's article to a higher standard. The is not an allowable source as any one can edit it. I stay away from primary sources since you will end up with an original research article if you depend on them too much. Second, who can really prove who is posting to a Twitter or Facebook account. You cannot.
You are also making assumptions about what kind of effort I make in finding references. I have spend time tracking down most of the sources given in the Primate article, but of course you can not seem to look, but you can see when I have overlook a talk post. I did try a couple of websites to try and confirm those edits. I have worked hard to find secondary sources which some will remove for no reason and insert a primary source, have you tracked all those down. Or the article where the edit summary demfames me by claiming I edit an article to supposedly defame them then claims I am edit warring over spelling and his blanking that he did under the flag of the defamation. Irish Melkite removed sourced information -- when you are so quick to jump on my cause for doing less -- and what he is talking about is not relevent to the reversion. Spshu (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
"Yet, none of them agree to place such any type of sourcing notice instead." - well, if they are under impression (true or false) that there is nothing wrong with sourcing, why would they..? In general it is the user who thinks that sourcing is insufficient who adds the tags...
"Discuss seems to be the ambush around here, such that little editing gets done and poor sourcing continues." - sorry, but I don't think I understood what you meant...
"Don't forget that under WP:BLP keeps living person's article to a higher standard." - true.
"The is not an allowable source as any one can edit it." - well, I can agree that it is, er, suboptimal... And I did tag it so ([24]).
"I stay away from primary sources since you will end up with an original research article if you depend on them too much." - yes, but in this case, let's say, finding out a birthday did not require any original research worth mentioning.
"Second, who can really prove who is posting to a Twitter or Facebook account. You cannot." - well, actually, I can. And I did ([25])... You know, we do not need to prove it "Beyond the shadow of a doubt". "Reasonable doubt" should be enough.
"You are also making assumptions about what kind of effort I make in finding references. I have spend time tracking down most of the sources given in the Primate article, but of course you can not seem to look, but you can see when I have overlook a talk post." - OK, fair enough. Sorry about the assumption. However, I have formed a second hypothesis: could it be that you do not know Latin and do not try to read it..? It would explain you missing this source, as well as this couple of edits: [26], [27]... Though I do not really see why you removed "Code of Canon Law, canon 438"... A misclick perhaps..?
Now, looking at the Code of Canon Law for Eastern Churches, "Titulus VIII DE EXARCHIIS ET DE EXARCHIS", I do not see anything like "exarchus apostolicus"... And we have "Can. 321 - § 1. Exarchus, qui Episcopus ordinatus non est, habet durante munere privilegia et insignia primae post episcopalem dignitatis. " - thus the exarchs covered here can be mere priests, not ordained bishops. They are unlikely to rank with primates...
My guess would be that the same title "exarch" is used differently by Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (as well as the ancient use by Latin Catholics). Could it be that the "Catholic Encyclopedia" talks just about Eastern Orthodox..? It could be that there were no Eastern Catholic exarchs at that time... That would explain why the sources seem to disagree.
By the way, it looks like "Irish Melkite" (and "Esoglou" [28]) has confirmed this version ([29]). Thus I guess that it is not correct to say that "Irish Melkite removed sourced information -- [...] -- and what he is talking about is not relevent to the reversion."...
Now it is nice that you have such zeal for Wikipedia, but if, on the same day, you have been reverted or criticised by so many editors and defended by none... Perhaps you should count it as a "bad day", have a rest and think everything through tomorrow..? Maybe we are all wrong. But what if we are not..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the statement regarding exarchs being the Eastern Catholic Church equivalents of primates. It is not, despite your inclusion of a reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, sourced in that text. An exarch in an Eastern Catholic Church (as referenced above, either priest or bishop) is, in effect, the head of a canonical jurisdiction which is not yet of sufficient import or stature to be elevated to an eparchy. In other words, it is on the bottom of a ladder of canonical jurisdictions which can effectively be described as: exach/exarchate (erected by either a major archbishop, a patriarch, or the pope - in which latter case, it is termed an apostolic exarchate); eparch/eparchy; archeparch/archeparchy; metropolitan archeparch/metropolitan archeparchy; major archbishop or archeparch/major archbishopric or archeparchy; patriarch/patriarchate.Irish Melkite (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

You may wish to join in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion on Code of Canon Law as reliable source for Catholic canon law and Esoglou (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich Fields[edit]

Any reason why you think he's not notable? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Because he doesn't have enough significant coverage ie. by major media. Yes, he has one the NT Times/About article but other than that none of the other are specifically about him nor major media. --Spshu (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
What sources are you reading? I've added a few more news articles specifically about him. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

Was there any other reason to add the "Primary sources" tag? I have discussed this in Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archives/ 8#Article issues? You can discuss it there. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


Please stop adding links to other navboxes in existing navboxes. Please read WP:NAVBOX and WP:Navigation templates to understand how they work. They are there to provide links to existing articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have read them. You are making stuff up. Switch to a different navbox meets the need to "links to existing articles." and are not expressly forbidden. --Spshu (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
They are not explicitly "forbidden" in the guidelines, no, but then maybe whoever wrote the guidelines didn't think it would come up. However, the guidelines explain how navboxes are supposed to work, "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles". Another navbox is not an article, and therefore should not be included. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Rob. As I stated in my edit summaries on those navboxes, per WP:NAVBOX every article included as a link in the navbox should also transclude that navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional. If you disagree, I would suggest that you take it to the talk page of those templates, rather than edit warring. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, good point - you can't transclude a navbox within a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but there are transclude navboxes out there, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the inter-navbox links as it isn't Wikipedia:Transclusion or Transclusion. --Spshu (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Some how, readers must not know about the other navboxes. --Spshu (talk) 13
21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

AIG Article[edit]

Thanks for your help cleaning up the AIG article. Do you have a quick moment to look at this section [30]? Right now, it has no context to anything. The original sponsorship post had context. Could we find a way to incorporate this chronologically in an existing element and remove this standalone entry. Let's do that? By the way, I'm working on correcting the chronology and grammatical errors in the article. I am also working on distinguishing the financial crisis from AIG's repayment of the loan. Thanks for helping out.Hiland109 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the work on updating the Sponsorship section into the History chronology. I'm working on expanding the history of AIG. Interested to collaborate?Hiland109 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Disney animation studios[edit]

Why did you delete the Dream Quest Images article and redirect to Disney Animation, rather than simply appending your summary of Dream Quest's work to the Disney page and linking to the main article? In doing so, you've eliminated valuable historical information (credit list, for example) as well as the original article's history. Hats off to Disney Animation and all, but I think some wiki readers might be interested to learn more about Dream Quest. Please consider replacing the original article by undoing your edit and then link to that from your Disney Animation article. Tekkonkinkreet (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Why, notability. Would you have prefered that I just request that the Dream Quest Images article be deleted instead? It isn't "Disney Animation" (or "Walt Disney Animation Studios") it is "Disney animation studios", more specific: it contains other animation studios of Disney, so your "Hats off to Disney Animation and all.." statement is meaningless. Spshu (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
O, and when I asked for comments on this at the WikiProject Disney, you can see no one commented. Spshu (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your combative response, but I'm sorry to have bothered you. Please note that I didn't revert your changes or make any edits to your article. I was simply asking for an explanation for your deleting some useful information about DQI. I don't want to argue with you about the relative notability of "Disney animation studios" and DQI - obviously we disagree. But it seems to me that notability, by itself, doesn't really justify your having actually deleted the original article. And I might add that the fact that no one responded to your query for comments does not excuse your actions either. You might have simply added a DQI section to your "Disney animation studios" article and referenced the original article for those interested in a more detailed discussion of DQI's history. That, it seems to me, would have achieved your goal of incorporating DQI to the "Disney animation studios" article while also allowing for expansion of the DQI article beyond what might be relevant to a discussion of "Disney animation studios" as a whole. (An example: Microsoft acquired Skype, but there remains a Skype Technologies article). Again, I'm sorry for any inconvenience my question has caused you.Tekkonkinkreet (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability determines whether or not the subject gets an articles, so you are arguing about the relative notability of DQI. End results if the DQI information wasn't merged with Disney animation studios and notability isn't established then the result would complete deletion of the article including the article's history (which I did not address your false accusation that I deleted it). So it is justifiable. You are the one coming here and being combative me with language like: "And I might add that the fact that no one responded to your query for comments does not excuse your actions either." WP says to be bold, so yes it does allow my actions. Your suggestion that "You might have simply added a DQI section ... and referenced the original article for those interested in a more detailed discussion of DQI's history." still would have required notability on DQI's part to have an article. Other Disney animated units Circle 7, DisneyToon Studios and Pixar have such an arrangement since they are notable. Spshu (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Then I guess I have to question your judgement in deeming DQI not worthy of note. Comparison to Pixar is unfair and I don't think WP is meant only to give space to the Pixars of the world. Before acquisition DQI won multiple Oscars for visual effects work, so I think it is safe to say that its history as an innovator in the field of motion control photography and photo-mechanical and optical effects has historical value. At the very least, I think a list of DQI credits would be of interest to the WP audience. Yes, WP says to be bold - I won't argue with that - but the nature of WP is that of a collaborative enterprise. As such, I'd hope, even if we disagree about the notability of DQI, that we can reach a compromise.Tekkonkinkreet (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I really wish you'd reconsider, and restore the Dream Quest Images article so that we may continue to expand it beyond what would be appropriate in the context of your Disney animation studios article. Two Oscars for visual effects, one for technical achievement, three more nominations, an Emmy, and several Peabodys - how is that not noteworthy?Tekkonkinkreet (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I have not been able to find another major news source to move it to the notable level. The films credit seem to off to begin with: no "Dinosaur", included movies not worked on, excluded movies worked on. Notability isn't transferable, so winning Oscars or other awards doesn't necessarily make DQI/Secret Lab notable. But its work seem to land in the early www days of the internet, so source online are hard to come by. Spshu (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I completely agree with your comment that online sources referencing Dream Quest's pre-Disney work are sparse. Unfortunate, but very true. The credit list was a work-in-progress, so there may have been omissions, particularly from Dream Quest's work post-Disney acquisition. But I confirmed the list with more than one former Dream Quest staff (and current Disney Animation staff as well) and I'm quite certain that the films listed were indeed worked on by DQ (though DQ may not have been the primary visual effects vendor on every film listed). Next time I will include references for all of these credits. I don't quite understand your comment that,

Notability isn't transferable, so winning Oscars or other awards doesn't necessarily make DQI/Secret Lab notable.

Am I correct in understanding that your main criticism is a lack of external sources? Not to contradict anything you've said, I will just mention here that the bulk of DQ's innovation was prior to the Disney acquisition, as a visual effects company, not as an animation company. Visual effects industry experts I've spoken with on the subject (including three I spoke with at Disney Animation in May of this year) are quick to acknowledge DQ's having taken the art of visual effects to a new level at a crucial period of transition from photo-mechanical (so-called "analog") VFX to digital (CGI) techniques. The fact that DQ was not very adept at promoting its own work to the public is an unfortunate one. Regardless, I'm currently collecting print sources that cover DQ's work (industry and popular press as well as a few books) and hope you'll reconsider allowing DQ it's own page in addition to the mention in your Disney animation studios article once I've got this together. Thank you.Tekkonkinkreet (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Dream Quest Images[edit]

A Google search leads to a trip to the LA Times search engine, and the LA Times wrote quite a few articles on Dream Question Images: It makes me no personal nevermind, but according to the rules, significant third party coverage, major achievements in field in question, and Academy Awards would very much make it notable as a histroical topic. Its later acquisition by Disney should not render this invalid. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

LA Times only counts as one source for notability. Notability is not inheritable so DQI earning an Academy Award doesn't make them notable. As you can see this was asked and answered above. Spshu (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Searching for printed and scholarly references reveals several sources mentioning the studio as a VFX pioneer, discussing the work it did on films before its acquisition by Disney, etc. The strictly web-related references tend to begin and end with Animation World Network, Ain't It Cool News, and Jim Hill Media, but out of all of these, plus at least five LA Times articles I saw, I would think this studio is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (at least one source on the studio, the Jim Hill article, is used as a reference in the article on the studio's founder, Hoyt Yeatman. I think it would be a good idea to ask for a third opinion. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Film Studio[edit]

Are there any reasons you insist that...

  1. Columbia Pictures is linked instead of the parent brand, but Walt Disney Pictures isn't?
  2. The two DreamWorks studios are clearly indicated as stand-alone brands only in hidden text? DreamWorks Animation is still often called just DreamWorks, and their movies are even branded as simply "DreamWorks".

-- (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. Columbia is the recognized Major Studio while Sony Picture holds it and many of the other units consider a part of the "Columbia" major studio. Disney is the only Major Studio formed conglomerate not snapped up by a larger conglomerate, thus it links to Disney Studios, the highest in the conglomerate structure that contains all "major studio" components: distribution ­(Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures), production ­(Walt Disney Pictures, main unit) and the actual studio location(s) (Disney Studio Services).
  2. They are not stand-alone brands but stand-alone companies (relative to each other) as the note says and are indicated as such in the template if it was otherwise it would look like this: "*DreamWorks (Dream Works Animation)" (but we are not including other studio units). The official name of DreamWorks Studios is DW II Distribution Co., LLC as best as we can tell as DW II license the use of the DreamWorks Studios name from the trademark holder, DreamWorks Animation. Spshu (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
So why not call it DreamWorks Studios in the template? -- (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems doubly redunate with the template being about "studios" and DreamWorks being in the "Mini-Major" studio group. I guess on a disambig. level that might make sense. Spshu (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


It seems that you mean to show support for Keeping the templates, but you never officially bolded any such sentiment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_4#Template:U._S._Network_Shows_footer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bay City, Michigan[edit]

I reverted your edits to Bay City, Michigan because you removed information such as the makeup of "West Bay City" being comprised of Banks, Salzburg, and Wenona. Also, consolidating the limited information you left under the section "Neighborhood" makes little sense, as it belongs in the "History" section.--Asher196 (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I added it and it was move to the West Bay City, Michigan article where it belonged as at the time I didn't know that West Bay City had its own article. West Bay City is ID as a current named populated place in the GNIS as such classified as a neighborhood. Secondly, you remove all the information you claimed you wanted to keep. You also marked as if I was a vandal and as a minor edit. Your edit will be reverse as in error. --Spshu (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WildStorm. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. postdlf (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that a centralized discussion about the merger issue has been started here. postdlf (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Going about trying to eliminate articles you don't like, by turning them into redirect, and edit then to make it worse edit warring to try to get what you want, is rather wrong of you. You also tag articles that have references proving they are notable, with notability tags. Dream Focus 22:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
First, you are not assuming good faith nor have you read any of the discussion linked above nor can you prove that I don't like them. Prehaps, I like WP more and don't go around making WP what I want, but follow the guidelines. Also, it takes two to edit war. To a degree, it was a discussion taking place with the edit summaries. If you if looked at the edit summaries would show that the other party had no reason. Second, having references doesn't make them notable. The sources need be of significate coverage not routine coverage. I could launch an attack that you start articles that aren't notable, but I have not, instead I tag it as unnotable giving you a chance to make it notable or move it into a notable and related article. This is what I did with the Imprint article, create an article to hold this info until notable sources guidline is met. Would you preferred that I took your new article directly to deletion? Spshu (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what "routine coverage" means. That deals with restaurant reviews in local newspapers, and whatnot. Anyway, best to continue this discussion at [31]. So far it doesn't seem like anyone has been able to reason with you, and I doubt I'm going to get through to you. Dream Focus 23:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This is the whatnot. Right, no one has been reasoning there except me. They just want the article because they want the seperate articles. Spshu (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Imprints of DC Comics images[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Imprints of DC Comics, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't upload them. They already exist for the articles that this article should replace. (But is being fought for "I want" reason.) Please go to the file's page to determine who uploaded them. --Spshu (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
added to an article You did add the files to Imprints of DC Comics without complying with WP:NFC specifically see WP:NFURG Werieth (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
These images only exist in one spot. So if the do not comply with "WP:NFC specifically see WP:NFURG" on Imprints of DC Comics then they failed at their original article. --Spshu (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually that is incorrect, they had rationales for their original articles, but not for the new one. Werieth (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a replacement article as all those article should be redirect here. Plus, the images only exist once on the WP servers regardless of how many articles they are on. Thus if those images are invalid at Imprint of DC Comics then the rationales are not valid for their original articles. Also, you didn't remove them all. Spshu (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It complys with 3a. "3.a.Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." So reusing the image instead of finding another image of non-free content for the article would be a violent of 3a. Spshu (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That is where you are wrong, the files have non-free use rationales for their original articles. (See WP:NFCC#10) But do not have a rationale for the article where you are adding them. Each use of a file requires a separate rationale. Please see The guide on writing rationales. Until the original articles are redirected the files shouldn't be added to that page. Werieth (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 edit warring[edit]

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I have given my explanation - the extra reference tags are not needed in the infobox, just sourcing the new, unknown production company. And your reverting of the citation, is not consistent to how the sources are used on the page. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spshu reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: ). Thank you. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


Please read WP:SELFSOURCE and note that it is acceptable to use Twitter as a source about information about themselves or their works. You may also wish to take a note of the following policies WP:BRD, WP:3RR and WP:EW and remember to discuss changes on a talk page. -- MisterShiney 21:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What kind of topic is "Hello"? It doesn't tell me a thing.
Go read WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources..." So Twitter doesn't have to be accepted. It is up to you to defend it, not go to war over it as if it is absolutely acceptable.
You, need to read WP:BRD as it says I don't have to "remember to discuss changes on a talk page." It was the addition of the twitter that was the bold edit that was reverted. You didn't go to discussion. And alot of times, the edit warring party will not come to the talk page unless reverted. So you too need to "note of the following policies WP:BRD, WP:3RR and WP:EW". Spshu (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Television[edit]

This is a notice that there is a discussion involving yourself at Talk:Marvel Television#August 2013 content dispute. I invite to please come and participate. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

DT2s, etc.[edit]

I no longer edit TV stations, mostly because of you. So you are now edit-warring across numerous TV station articles with yourself. - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Tribune Entertainment/Studios[edit]

Apparently you failed to understand the reason not to change the information on the Tribune Entertainment page. I read the source from "Broadcasting & Cable", where it says in the article "Tribune has named Warner Bros. executive Matt Cherniss president/general manager of WGN America and the newly formed Tribune Studios.". Tribune Studios is a new entity of the Tribune Company and is not formerly known as Tribune Entertainment, where that company was shut down after Tribune announced to end its television distribution business says here. If Tribune Entertainment was renamed Tribune Studios, all sources would've said so, therefore they didn't. So this is your warning to you regarding to this information before you end up edit warring, which is against rules and regulations here at Wikipedia. Edit warring can cause you to get blocked from editing. Read the sources properly next time without starting any trouble, and have a nice day. Thank you. (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't understand how corporate PR works as I pointed out that with Disney Consumer Products (DCP) announcing a "New" unit, Disney Consumers Product, with the appointment of its current head when DCP has existed for years. You were reversed as the edit summary indicated for not waiting for consensus. Thus it is you creating trouble. Spshu (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I understand how that works. It is you that failed to understand that the two Tribune companies differ from one another by reading the sources properly without you changing anything to go your way. That is where you made your mistakes. I did not create trouble; you did. This isn't Burger King where you can have it your way. If you don't believe in compromise or teamwork without edit warring to have it your way, then I suggest you move on. (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It is you who is edit warring as you have not waited for any other opinion. You were reversed for not doing so. You acknowledge that company do declare "new" companies that already exist. So once again, you are trying to blame me for your actions. Yup, you can have it your way. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Open proxy[edit]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
Spshu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; open-proxy review requests must be made at the IP talk page. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
If I cannot edit outside of my talk page, then how do I edit the IP talk page? Nothing instructed me to post there and when blocked when I am at the Library (who has the open proxy which is blocked) I can not edit there. Spshu (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Italo-Albanian Catholic Church[edit]

Hello Spshu, happy to meet you :-) We appear to have a conflict concerning the interpretation of the CE article, and in particular, as you say, the first paragraph, as nowhere do I find anything close in meaning to "This particular church is also referred to by the name Italo-Greek Catholic Church [no objections to this part], which is derived from the Italo-Greek (Italo-Græcus) demonym which was traditionally used to classify the inhabitants of Southern Italy and Sicily; people who are modern day Italians but are historically of Greek origin." IMHO you are making confusion in part due to the outdated nature of the source which tends to uniform Greeks and Albanians, whichin Italy have long been felt as one due to there common Byzantine origin. The article then continues in the first paragraph to apply those that are part of the church: 1) old ecclesiastical communities; 2) all those Greek colonies founded by Greek merchants in important Italian maritime cities; 3) the Greek and Albanian minorities present on Italian soil, especially the latter. Adding a personal opinion, I suspect this article is rather outdated (1913) and that in the meanwhile Greek and Albanian minorities in Italy have been separated (I find it extremely tough to believe the Greek minority would have stayed in a church called "Italo-Albanian"). I hope to have persuaded you; if not at all, well maybe we should try some sort of dispute resolution.Aldux (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Why am I confused when you write such a confusing post. The CE source doesn't outdate itself for alternative but older name of the church, but you want to throw the whole CE article out as a source via reliablity, which is the primary source (being used 10 times) for the WP article. You claim that you explain why Verifiability or WP:RS, but have not. The Catholic Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia which are general better fact checked as it had a five member editorial board. Check the talk page (under "Requested move" and "Moved again?") regarding Italo-Albanian name. Reminder, we go with the common name not official names at WP. Spshu (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Flint Metro League table[edit]

On August 27 when updating the Flint Metro League article to reflect the upcoming changes to that league beginning in 2014, I noticed in this revision that you changed the table from the one I had put there in March and said that you had "restored sourced version." I had kept the sources in my revision but had presented the information in a more conventional table and narrative.

IMHO, the table on the current revision of the article is awkward and cumbersome. I've never seen information presented in a table that way. I think that a more conventional table with a graphical timeline would be appropriate (I had done both of these things on the Big Nine Conference article), but I'd like to know what you think. Dafoeberezin3494 (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Walt Disney Pictures[edit]

I'm starting a discussion here so our explanations aren't restricted by edit summaries, and to avoid any future edit warring at Walt Disney Pictures.

I'd like to know what you're trying uphold between Walt Disney Pictures and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. In this edit, you claimed that WDP and WDSMP are the same and yet in these subsequent edits [32] [33] you're telling Trivialist and I to stop mixing them up (which we're not, we have them as seprate units). What exactly are you asserting?

WDP is a production company/film label/banner/brand. WDSMP is the The Walt Disney Studios' overall theatrical distribution division, which distributes films from other units besides WDP (including Marvel, Touchstone, and Disneynature). That's essentially what Trivialist and I are trying to keep intact. Also, the reason as to why there is a "Not to be confused with..." at the article's top, is to disambiguate WDP from WDSMP, since they both have similarly-sounding names.

Like I explained in one of my edit summaries, your edits have absolutely no reputable sources to back them up. That makes your edits original research and fair game for us to revert them on that basis alone. The article already had sources proving that Walt Disney Pictures is a film label and now, all of a sudden, you're changing up the whole article and removing such references. Examples include;

Thanks. I hope to expect a civil and timely response soon. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world are we going through this again!!!!
No, one is the production arm, which is name Walt Disney Picture (WDP) here on WP, and the other the distribution arm, the formerly incorporated BVMPD, which is named Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (WDSMP) on WP. I am saying they currently use both version of the name, WDP and WDSMP. This has been argued about between you and I multiple times now, which you weakly some what agree that you change your mind but don't stated it directly.
You are mixing them up you have the production arm distributing other units' movies! WSP: First you name it a "film studio" which is indicative of production and distribution. "and serves as the main distributor brand for several of Disney's other production companies." Um, since the distribution arm uses the same brand(s) (WDP & WDSMP), you are thusly claiming the production arm as its distribution unit. You who attacked me with "I'm frankly exhausted that this issue has not been subdued, despite concrete reasoning being provided by editors." when you felt that Marvel Studios could not hold the distribution rights to its movies because it doesn't have a distribution arm, say that another Disney conglomerate production unit (WDP) is out there distributing films despite not being the distribution arm. That is one step further than holding the distribution rights and I didn't even argue that.

So, Walt Disney Studios isn't an "reputable sources" about the name of its units? "[But per Walt Disney Studios, what we call Walt Disney Pictures is called Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and per the Walt Disney Co.'s Our businesses page: The Walt Disney Studios states "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" - "Industry: Live-Action Film Production" Business Week also indicates that "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Inc. operates as a motion picture and television feature distribution company." Business Week also shows separate presidents of Disney Studios Motion Pictures for production and distribution."

  • Founded in 1950 - Source?
First live action movie, Treasure Island, right in the text of the article where it indicates that the division was started. Based on "July 4 1949: Filming begins in England on Treasure Island." (source: Walt Disney - The Triumph of the American Imagination, by Neal Gabler, 2006. Page 470.) it should be July 4, 1949. Disney Co. states [1950 which is Treasure Island's release year.
WDP is the live action production unit and doesn't release films WDSMP does.
  • Removal of the Distribution subsection - Already explained above
WDP is the live action production unit and doesn't release films WDSMP does. Spshu (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The article's misuse of the term "film studio" is not my fault. That's how the lead sentence has been written since July 2010, and that's why it was retained in my version. The misuse of the term's definition is something that I didn't even notice until you pointed it out. If I had noticed it before, then I would have changed it.
You seem to have misinterpreted the following phrase; "serves as the main distributor brand for several of Disney's other production companies". What that line suggests is not that WDP is a distributor or that it dabbles in distributing, instead it means that WDP is (in addition to being a production company) a film brand used by WDSMP to distribute other films, including animated films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar. This is directly proven by the Walt Disney Studios' official website's About page, where it states Walt Disney Pictures (referred to just as "Disney") as one of their film banners that also "includes Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar Animation Studios". The overview page found here also states: "Walt Disney Pictures, which includes live-action films as well as animated films from Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios".
Your reasoning for removing the distribution subsection is still unclear. The only reason that subsection existed, was to show that WDSMP is the one responsible for the live-action unit's distribution, and not WDP itself. Yet, you removed it for that very same reason.
On a more important note, you mentioned that there are two WDSMP presidents; one for production and one for distribution. Are you referring to Sean Bailey and Robert A. Chapek? If so, then I have to hand it to you, in arguing that WDP and WDSMP are unified units. The fact that there two presidents with WDSMP in their titles is strong evidence in favor of that. Unfortunately, the problem that's evident here is that Wikipedia's current articles don't explain that missing link at all. Instead, our articles portray WDSMP as a company responsible only for distribution, instead of what the Walt Disney Studios/Business Week sources are saying it really is. Therefore, if they are a unified unit, I suggest that you and I should rewrite these two articles, so that they accurately convey Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures as both a production/distribution company and Walt Disney Pictures as the live-action production component of it. What do you think? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
unit formed Pre-drop of BV name Current full name
production 1950 Walt Disney Pictures (?) Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Production
distribution 1953 Buena Vista Pictures Distribution Co. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Distribution
See both have the same "full" name with their division/company/department (how ever you want to catagorized them) name optional, ie. they operate under the same name, unified in name usage but are seperate departments with one formerly a seperate corporation (BVPD). The production division, for what ever reason, was assigned the common name for the WP article name and distribution having the full name at WP to disambiguated them instead of say "WDP (Production)" and "WDP (distribution)".
Re: distribution subsection removal because it does distribute films and WDP is equally a brand of the distribution arm also thus distribution usage of WDP refers to the distribution arm not the production arm. The section with removed and was replace with a sentence in the lead paragraph: "Nearly all of Walt Disney Pictures' releases are distributed theatrically by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, through home media platforms via Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment and for syndication to TV stations and digital outlets by Disney-ABC Domestic Television."
Re: two WDSMP presidents, Sean Bailey (President, Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production) and Robert A. Chapek, yes, but Chapek seems to have left and his duties have been move up to Alan Bergman, President, The Walt Disney Studios currently. Spshu (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of Jetix[edit]

Now since you didn't show me where the answer to my questions is and you acted all moany and huffy, the article has been protected. We could have even made a deal, but no, you just undid my edits because you think they aren't correct. (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Jetix Play UK[edit]

That's strange. I don't remember a Jetix Play in UK. TDFan2006 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Play UK again[edit]

If Jetix Play in UK was Telewest exclussive and it closed in 2007, how did Jetix Play close in 2010? The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get that it was exclusive? If you read the edit, the source, the MASIVE DB, indicates there were other carriers. --Spshu (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Justice League 3000[edit]

Justice League 3000 receives significant coverage in reliable sources. All of those sources are deemed reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 20:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Not for notability: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time," A few comic book website do not indicate Justice League 3000 has met this requirement. So, even if those sites are "deemed reliable source" by WP standards, they don't meet WP Wikipedia:Notability standards because the comic book fandom isn't the world at large. It is you who there for is edit warring. --Spshu (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
So I suggest that you either accept the notability notice, find two notable source, or build it as a section within another article like Justice League. Spshu (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
DF is actually right here. The sites used are some of the top comic sites (like Comic Book Resources and Newsarama), and commonly used to source articles on comic books, in part that most comic coverage does not happen in mainstream press. These source, as I've found, are peer-reviewed and tend to be considered appropriate expert sites for comic books. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
More importantly, we do have different degree of standards in considering what are sources for notability in different fields. The type of sourcing required for academic topics isn't going to be the same for more contemporary culture topics. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Spshu, I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring, which should have been an obvious outcome of you continuing to revert other editors at Justice League 3000. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

First, I have not been reported for edit warring. Second, they have reverting contrary to the notability standards, so they are the edit warring party. At this point, since I have not been reported and you have chosen to block me, there for you have chosen a side in the matter. Thus you should not be blocking me. Some how, how they could not stand a notability notice on the article, thus chose to edit war over it. Spshu (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Masem, even agrees that he chooses NOT to follow the general notability standard in his statement that: "we do have different degree of standards in considering what are sources for notability in different fields." Differing fields still needs to fall under general notability standard else, then what is the point of the general notability standard?
As such, Postdlf, you have issued a punitive block contrary to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, since they have signaled that they are the disruptive parties. Spshu (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
So, you refuse to accept that you did anything wrong. Will you continue to try to eliminate that article by replacing it with a redirect despite everyone reverting you, and claim everyone else is being disruptive instead? Reliable sources include subject specific magazines, websites with proper editorial review, television shows that only review certain types of things, and whatnot. We don't just wipe out all comic book articles since the vast majority of them will never get mentioned in a standard newspaper. Dream Focus 17:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Spshu, you are wikilawyering and I'm not playing that game with you. I blocked you to stop further edit warring, noting only that there were multiple editors disagreeing with you regardless of what you think the correct guideline interpretation is. I didn't even realize it at the time I blocked you, but I personally warned you on this talk page for the same kind of edit warring in the same subject area just a few months ago. And you are all over the archives of the edit warring noticeboard, having already received multiple warnings going back more than a year. You will discuss disagreements, and you will respect the consensus of other editors instead of reverting to get your way. Further conduct of the same kind will result in additional blocks. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It was changed to a redirect, because you and other edit warred against having a notability tag. Notability is a higher standard than reliable sources, so yes most of the comic book article should not be here. Routine coverage like reviews and sites like these don't count towards notability. You do understand that their are other places even other wiki sites, for one that are all inclusive right? Wikia was founded by the founder of Wikipedia, so it is understood that not everything should be covered on WP. I general just give a notability tag, so editors have a chance to prove notability. But instead, you go to war over that tag. I even gave you some [other options to end the edit war and another just now, but instead you continued to edit war didn't you?
So, DreamFocus, you would agree with a gang of bullies attacking a single student just because they are the larger group and you think I should too. "You can fool most of the people most of time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." which means the majority can be wrong.
Postdlf, you say are not playing the wikilawyering game and you go right into wikilawyering by citing previous events including being at ANI/3RR. So, what if I am at ANI/3RR, I have been equally the reporting party in some of those cases and even counter reported on the other party. So I should be dinged for both being wrongly reported or being the reporting party? (I have been there only 13 times to your 71 times, Postdlf. So under that standard, you should be blocked permanently.) And most of the time I have been at ANI/3RR, the adimins wikilawyer a reason not to block the other parties (not 4 reverts despite the 3 in the 3RR, no discussion on the talk page of the article, etc). Some times, I have started discussion on the talk pages but they other parties will not show up unless they are reversed or the page block. So, I should agree that people should gang up on others that just OK with you Postdlf. So, I didn't given any options in this discussion to end the edit war? Look again Postdlf. So, there is not a inherent consensus in the general notability standard already? Spshu (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The GNG is applies to different subject areas by considering for those subject areas what are appropriate sources. Comic Book Resources is not the New York Times , and I wouldn't use CBR to claim sourcing for a BLP or major international event as I would the NYtimes. But they are proven as experts in the field of comic books and shown editorial control over their content, so if its an issue with comic books, then yes, they are a sufficient source to be used to justify notability. The GNG is not broken as you think, it's understanding that the GNG does not make any stipulation on the quality of the sources as long as they meet WP:RS, which will be a function of the field of study the topic is in; this is a consession to understand that we are more than just an academic encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I quote the Notability standard, and what you say is false. Comic book news sites are not the world at large. Spshu (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm extremely familiar with the notability guideline. Please tell me where a site like Comic Book Resources cannot be used as a source, based on the presumption that it does meet requirement of being a reliable source.
Again, I will stress: WP is not just an academic encyclopedia, and we cover a lot more than a traditional encyclopedia. If we limited sourcing to "the world at large" we would be cutting out about 90% of the material, not just from contemporary culture but higher sciences, regional matters, etc. There is not a baseline to quality of sourcing as you think there is. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, postdlf, you seem to have failed to do any investigation of Dream Focus who has 350 trips to the Admin Noticeboards and is a know super-inclusionist. And 3 editors (Dream Focus, IP editor & Masem) is not multiple editors by any definition, heck I have had 5 to 2 called no consensus and 7 to 1 called thin consensus. Masem, thanks for discussing the matter even if we don't agree, unlike other.

  • WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
  • WP:NNC: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation." thus the difference between significant, or notable, source and reliable sources.
  • WP:ORGDEPTH: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements.." " Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:" "..routine restaurant reviews, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or.." Thus reviews and interviews don't count towards notability.


The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.

Independence of sources

A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.

WP:SIGCOV: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Spshu (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

    • ORGDEPTH doesn't apply at all, this is a comic book, not an organization (even if it is about a fictional organization of sorts). However, reviews for any media, as long as it is an independent source, are secondary sources and always count towards notability. Yes, you do have a fair issue with the fact that sources from the comic book industry being used to cover comic books could possibly be taken as lack of independence, but this would then apply to narrow academic topics (like higher maths), many films, TV shows, and the like, and we'd have to drastically cut those down too, and that's just going to happen. The sources in question have a somewhat narrow focus, but they cover the whole industry, thus they are considered broad (not of limited interest) and published to the Internet (broad circulation). Basically, you're interpreting the sources used here in a manner completely contrary to the current consensus across all WP. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
DC Comics isn't an organization? Quotes are interpretations? Wow! That is really strange. Just because the are published to the Internet doesn't mean they have "broad circulation". Instead, you are stating that every one ignores what the rules (supposedly based on consensus) are and goes on what they feel style consensus.
Movies, TV show, and the like are main stream and are covered by main stream media. Just stating "The sources in question have a somewhat narrow focus, but they cover the whole industry, thus they are considered broad (not of limited interest) and published to the Internet (broad circulation)." No, because what a comic book monthly circulation numbers is like 30,000 copies sold compared to $50 million dollar box office at an average ticket price of $10 (guess at, seems reasonable) means 5,000,000 saw the movie. Math is not limited interest because everyone has to use it (wow, I just used it in movies vs. CB, thus a point for it not being of limited interest), and you indicate that WP is suppose to be academic + encyclopedia. Also as previously pointed out there is the wikis which was started by WP's founder, which makes it clearly not every thing will be cover at WP.
And CBR is such an editorial controled site, not, here they publish straight up a press release. Newarama does the same for the same topic. Zero, editorial control in doing that. And the Comic Vine article is based on a CBR article and they swiped the images from CBR as the images are marked 'CBR excusive' with no credit to CBR any where on the page. Bleeding Cool states: "Disclaimer: This site is full of news, gossip and rumour. You are invited to use your discretion and intelligence when discerning which is which. cannot be held responsible for falling educational standards. Bleeding Cool is neither fair nor balanced, but it is quite fun." The other two sources are an interview and a review. Spshu (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Even the New York Times publishes press releases. [34] But we aren't citing press releases as significant coverage. Dream Focus 16:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
If we were talking about the article DC Comics, then yes, ORGDEPTH would apply (and of course there's no question DC comics is notable). But we're talking about a comic book, so it does not. And just because sales figures are not in the millions doesn't mean we don't cover comics - the fact that we get comic-base superhero movies all the time as well as popular television shows (the Walking Dead) means they are still considered influential pieces of art. If you start talking about numbers, there's probably a lot less people involved in higher academic topics then that read comics, but we're not going to remove them. And save for the comicvine (Which I do know is a wiki-like site) your arguments on the rest of the sites just don't hold water.
If you really feel we should not have this article, feel free to take it to AFD. However, my prediction is that it will be speedily kept because it meets notability guidelines, even if those of use that reverted your change do not get involved. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Rereaded the quote, it clearly extends beyond the company itself: "...the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it."
Only when the notability guidelines are mangled like you attempt in claiming just because the sites are on the internet that they are of broad interest and circulation. And higher academic topic should be cover long before any comic book topic as that is the point over and above any popular culture as it is an encyclopedia. Spshu (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
You're the first person I've seen interpret that line in ORGDEPTH to refer to published entertainment rather than physical utilitarian devices. And I have been around the notability guidelines for more than 6 years, I know what we mean with sourcing and the like, and you are clearly mistaken. If you are so strongly assured you have the weight of guidelines behind you, then you should send the article to AFD to get consensus on that. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget " of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; .." Spshu (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


I noticed you changed some callsigns on the O&O TV page to the base callsigns as opposed to their actual F.C.C.-issued callsign (e.g.: KCNC-TV is the legal call, not KCNC). The full legal callsign should always be displayed, not the base.Stereorock (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So you demand that people address you with your full legal name, first middle and last name, every time they address you? But, you want to be addressed as Stereorock here, which is not your legal name. Why are you using that? WP:COMMONNAME is the key here. So, some how you are telling me you can not tell that the call signs refer to TV stations in a TV station article? Spshu (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
There is an issue of BASE callsigns. For example, you changed WBZ-TV to WBZ. Well, to the F.C.C., WBZ is the radio station on 1030 kHz; WBZ-TV is the television station. 2 completely different things. WBZ is not the television station. When we list stations here, the articles go by their F.C.C.-issued callsign. Any name, positioner, etc. they may use is incidental. If we are going by listing the common name, why not put "ABC 6", "NBC 10", "Fox 25", etc. instead of an inaccurate callsign? That, by the way, is something I am against. The wikipedia reader can click on a callsign and see in the article whatever the name of the station may be. All stations with -FM suffixes and -TV suffixes, even if there is no base callsign (just the 3- or 4-letter callsign), are listed as the full calsign.Stereorock (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
We are not the FCC, we do not report to the FCC and the nav box specifies it is about TV stations ("Owned-and-operated stations of the major television networks of the United States"), not broadcasting stations in general. Changing WGZ-TV to WGZ in a list of TV Stations is still WGZ-TV not WBZ-AM/FM radio station. We don't use ABC 6 and the like because you can have 2 ABC6 as there are multiple "ABC7", which one would get the nod for the main article? Since, these name can change with a change in networks, ABC7 is consider branding instead of their name.
Secondly, the dropping of the "TV", "LP" or "DT" is to make the Nav. box smaller thus easier to look through. This doesn't effect the article title. Spshu (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

List of DC Comics imprints[edit]

I've moved it back to the article namespace - the article has worth, as some of the imprints do lack general content, it just needs to be cleaned up a bit. Also, you originally moved the article into a userpage namespace, rather than a sandbox sub-page under your own user page; don't know if it was intentional, but it didn't seem like it. || Tako (bother me) || 21:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but consensus was against using the article. You should have spoken up during the discussion. You might want to look above how being at the noticeboards was used against me. I had original made a long post at the comicbook article but lost it an editing confict. Spshu (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Consensus was against merging all the imprint articles into that single article. But as Takuy has said, there is value for a list of imprint that incorporate some of the less notable ones, while leaving the notable ones as separate articles. This is a completely appropriate approach for dealing with a mix of notable and non-notable topics. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
No, there wasn't consensus, four doesn't make a consensus (which general means 100%) from a group of 10. It was mostly a discussion on notability sources or talk of AfD, which I have been told the votes have with no reasoning behind them. If there was a consensus, then where are the votes about the individual article? And with Postdlf unwilling to state his case fully, the existance of this article seem to be part of the reason he refused removal of the block since this was the edit war that refers to previous happening. Spshu (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

IP editor sanctions?[edit]

In regards to the article Major film studio, I have attempted tell an IP editor that there isn't a conflict over Lionsgate, but the editor continues to revert ruining viewability of the full table and reinstating improper classificiation of some film units. I request page protection for the page, but was rebuffed being told to seek sanctions. So I am unsure where to go as the only sanction is article sanction, which I am not sure it fits. And I have an administrator that hold against me for even showing up at 3RR. What should I do? Spshu (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion. The admin declining your protection request meant that you should try to have the IP address blocked or restricted for edit warring, using the word "sanctions" in a general way (definition #2), not the Wikipedia-specific meaning.
However, after reading the discussion on the article talk page, it's quite clear that both you and the anonymous editor are both convinced that your own position is correct and the other is wrong -- making this a content dispute, not a clear case of one editor behaving badly. I would not feel comfortable blocking the IP when it's clear they genuinely believe their position is correct, just as you do.
Instead, I've fully protected the page for one week, to allow you time to seek dispute resolution to resolve this issue. It's clear that simple discussion on the talk page isn't working, but something needs to happen -- as I suggested on the talk page, perhaps you could try WP:DRN first. —Darkwind (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I go that he was using it general way after the one ANI "sanction" option wouldn't work. Just want the correct one.
His position is the same as mine over the positions of LGE Corp. and LGE Inc.? So what do you see the content dispute is about then? He just will not register that the differences are only cosmetic re:LGEC/LGEI and he continues to add back other misclassification (Marvel Studios and Lucasfilms as genre labels being superheroes and sci-fi respectively). Spshu (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I filed the dispute. Spshu (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Buena Vista school district[edit]

Thank you for writing that article! One thing is that things need to be written in past tense (you would write in present tense if you are describing the plot of a fictional book/movie/etc).

Anyway I decided to beef up the Inkster school district page. They closed too... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion[edit]

Hi. You've participated in discussions on KCAL-TV. Can you offer your opinion about the inclusion of material in an article that's taking place in this consensus discussion, in which the reliability of that source is one of the issues that was raised (among others)? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


You moved the article on the comic from Pow! to Pow! (comic) and created a disambiguation page at its title, but you have not fixed the large number of incoming links to the comic which now point to the dab page. Please either fix all those links, or consider reverting your move and coping with the company and the album in a hatnote on the comic's article. It's your responsibility to clean up after creating a dab page in this way - there's a note to say so which appears during the move operation. PamD 23:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Dream Center[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Spshu. You have new messages at Carniolus's talk page.
Message added 20:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sony Pictures Entertainment[edit]

Jeff Blake IS considered as one of the main key personnel in Sony Pictures. He is the executive vice chairman of the company. Read here Who are you to say that he is NOT?? (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So what if he is the vice chairman. Sony Pictures website (and the wikilink there to) nor your option doesn't make it so. Then why aren't any of the others listed? Spshu (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"So what if he is the vice chairman."?? Then why don't YOU make the list of the senior management team on the article? Read this too (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of discussion for a proposed split of Iron Man: Rise of Technovore. Also a WP:3RR warning.[edit]

I've gone ahead and proposed that Iron Man: Rise of Technovore be split at Talk:Marvel Anime. Feel free to participate in the discussion. Also, the attempt to split seems to be entirely in good faith to me, and saying it isn't is quite rude to the person trying to split it. Keep in mind that it is normal for article content to be copied from one place in Wikipedia to another when things are split or merged, and that User:Raamin complied with the bare minimum requirements for copying content by listing the article it was copied from in the edit summary. Saying the information was "swiped" is inaccurate, as the copying of the information complied with Wikipedia guidelines. Also, please note WP:3RR, which states that it is against policy to revert an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. It looks like you reverted Iron Man: Rise of Technovore 4 times in the last 24 hours. Please don't edit war in that fashion. If you continue to do so, it is possible that you will be blocked from editing in the future. Calathan (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Iron Man: Rise of Technovore. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Bbb23, but it looks like you didn't bother to look at my defense at the ANI board. Can you, Bbb3, respond to Rammin over at Talk:Marvel_Anime#Proposed_split_of_Iron_Man:_Rise_of_Technovore that Ultimate Avengers 2 shouldn't exist and that I am working on Marvel Animated Features article in my user space and that what is happening with other articles isn't necessarily valid with others. But hay we would want to discussion any thing. Some times I think I can work it out with the other editor in vis via the edit summary and some times we have. And other ignore any discussion what so ever, so they can own the article. Spshu (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Disney Cinemagic[edit]

Even if he didn't war that page. He was removing good information on Disney Cinemagic after I apologized for "stealing" his work. The page has been protected until Monday. TDFan2006 (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You apologized then bashed me on the talk page. I had it protected because you would not discuss it and just revert as you are the edit warring there. "Good information" as I pointed out on WP is source, which none of which you added was source. The onus is on the person that adds the information. Also, why would Toon Disney, usually a "basic" cable channel be the successor to a premium channel? Spshu (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Pinewood derby[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Evrik. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Pinewood derby because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You may want to discuss such a major change first. --evrik (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Playhouse Disney 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:
  • | owner = [[Disney Channel]])<br>([[Disney Channels Worldwide]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


It's a "parent category", not "indirectly in that category". Please use standard wiki terminology in your edit summaries, OK? (thanks) Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, it is the WP language police. That was standard English, OK. And is descriptive of what a "parent category" is. So, if you don't understand "indirectly in that category" then you don't know what a "parent category" is. Spshu (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
"Indirect" means, "not direct" as opposed to the more accurate and appropriate "subordinate," which if you don't like the "parent-child" lingo would also have worked. And as I attempted to make my comment politely with a thank you and everything, your snark is uncalled for. Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Citizens Republic Bancorp[edit]

There is an IP address who wants to talk about Citizens Republic Bancorp in the present tense even though the corporate entity no longer exists. Please monitor the article. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DiverScout (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

HIT Entertainment[edit]

Hi Spshu, could you take another look at this edit of yours. There are a couple of grammatical issues and I don't want to take a stab at fixing it if I guess incorrectly. The first issue is "the Jim Henson Productions". That sounds odd. The second is "On April 1, 2004, the company and The Jim Henson Company..." I assume the first company is HiT? Thanks, not trying to be a smartass, just unsure of what you were getting at. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a bit odd on "the Jim Henson Productions". I figured that some one would get upset that the "the" wasn't there. Yes, the first company is HiT, WP MOS denies the standard capitalization when indicating the subject of the article. Just "HiT" got a little repetitive. Spshu (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


Frisbee (TV channel) is worthy of note, is one of the seven major channels for children italian television (Source: Auditel Nielsen TAM); then Switchover Media no longer exists but was purchased and incorporated in Discovery Italia Srl.-- (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We already discussed this and the do not violate the non-free image policy. Further claims of violating the policy at that page will be consider edit warring. Spshu (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney. Ahecht (TALK
) 17:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reworked the list so it shows only the premiere dates instead of the date ranges, since the end dates are difficult to ascertain - one would have to page through the very scarce programming schedules. You can copy or move over the Jetix-related entries. I'm not sure if there's an automatic way of reorganizing the references but let me know if you need help with that. Thanks. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to exclude some Jetix-related series that aren't original to Jetix but were brought over, like the Nascar Racers, so feel free to regroup those into acquired programming or whatever makes the most sense. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits related to the Buena Vista School District[edit]

Hi! I apologize that I haven't had a chance to find your edit, but I would like to discuss these edits here.

1. Please do not remove a website just because "website will most likely be shut down at some point" - Please don't do that. By removing the old website URL people who are not computer literate won't be able to find out where the old website was. Why is this important? Because we want people to be able to easily access the saved copies of the old websites.

The Wayback Machine at saves copies of old websites. is now dead. However...*/ is very much accessible and people can learn about the old district by going through its webpages from the past. If you remove the old URL people may not know where the old website was. In this revision I added the links to the website archives.

2. Re: "image doesn't prove location just mailing address"

The edit was well meaning but it removed the citation. The image at was the header of the website and it was stating the physical location address (which happens to be the mailing address).

Unfortunately, specifically that image cannot be viewed on the wayback machine:*/ is blocked for some reason WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

1. This isn't our or my responsibility. If you want to link to the Wayback Machine then link via the Wayback Machine, don't come here and lecture me. Linking to the old website don't do them any good when they expect to click on them that they work.

2. No, the image citation places it in Saginaw ("705 N. Towerline Road, Saginaw, MI 48601") NOT Buena Vista Charter Township, the information it was suppose to be supporting. It is a general mistake that the mailing address is the physical location address. It just is the post office that deliveries the mail there as the GNIS FAQ 27 indicates: "Therefore, the ZIP Code boundary in no way indicates a legal “footprint” of a named community, is not official for purposes other than delivering mail, and changes periodically." So there for is NOT considered a reliable source for locations. Spshu (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

McDonald's & Burger King templates[edit]

Hello, I wish to discuss your recent edits to these two templates. The reason those links are along the top of the templates is because they are the core articles for the subject. Your removal of them and substitution as section titles with less than descriptive titles makes it harder for people to understand what the link to. That is why I reverted your changes. If you feel that there is a substation reason why these changes should be made, please discuss it on the talk page per bold, revert and discuss.

Also, please do place allegations of unsubstantiated misuse of tools in your edit summaries, it goes against one of our central tenants of assuming good faith ---Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 23:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

They are duplicate of the group titles. If some one can not understand as the section titles then they will not understand them in the "above" section. So, some how they are no longer about Burger King or McDonald. Basic common sense and is routinely used when possible on all navboxes.
The [Wikipedia:Twinkle|Twinkle]] as it states is for: " help them deal with acts of vandalism. It provides users with three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions, user warnings and welcomes, maintenance tags, semi-automatic reporting of vandals,.." When an editor gives no reason for a reversion (" RV - Undo." at McD and BK) then it is assume to be vandalism, since revisions were not vandalism. In fact, this is not an "allegations of unsubstantiated misuse of tools" as WP:TWINKLEABUSE clearly states that "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." You did not use "an appropriate edit summary". It is you who is not assuming good faith and tagged me as a vandal. You clearly abused Twinkle and now richly attack me for not assuming good faith.
Twinkle edits on these two templates will be reversed due to your abuse of it. YOu will need to request the changes on the talk pages per bold, revert and discuss.
At this point tell me why I should not report you for edit warring, Twinkle abuse, failure to ASF, gaming the system by using ASF to attack me? Spshu (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
My edit summary on the first revert was less than spectacular, and that is my fault. However, if you note that my second revert (here) added a descriptive reason why I reverted your edits coupled with my attempt to engaged you on this talk page. So your third revert of the page claiming abuse of tools is a little less convincing, without providing a single reason why your edits are preferable anywhere. I would ask you to please revert your changes and engage me on the talk page.
Also, please stop threatening to report me for one mistake when you have been warned or blocked several times for your behaviors regarding edit wars, while I have never once even come close to the "crimes" you accuse me of. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 00:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I just gave a reason here in the [first paragraph of my previous post. To now claim that I did not provide ".. a single reason why your edits are preferable anywhere." is false.
Bringing up different warning or blocks about different issues isn't a defense and isn't allowed. Doing so is not acting in good faith: "When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind." I gave you an opportunity to explain yourself not a threat to defuse the situation instead of going down the reporting road. Second, I showed very clearly that you did abuse Twinkle by not giving a reason thus assuming I was a vandal despite a good faith edit thus not showing good faith, so it is beyond close. It is a fact whether you like it or not. Another, it is not one mistake as you claim, you abused TW twice on BK & McD templates and the fact that wasn't vandalism is not assuming good faith. Spshu (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
All I said was RV - Undo which means ReVert - undo. Undoing something is not assigning the tag of vandalism. If I had used the Rollback - Vandal switch, you could say I accused you of vandalism. Using the undo is simply undoing an edit. Again, using an non-descriptive edit summary is a mistake, not an abuse. Please stop parsing my edit summaries as an attempt to justify your attempts to dismiss my problems with your edits.
Finally, I am not using your history as a defense - I was pointing out that you have a history of edit warring, 3R violations and blocks as such and that your threatening me with them is ironic. You did come close to violating WP:Edit warring guidelines on these edits and you did ignore the primary idea behind WP:BRD when you failed to restore your edits to a period before where they were disputed. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 07:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Basically since they don't give a reason as RV - Undo is no different than the standard TW vandal message as a reason was not given just what you did. ("If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary.") So, yes, I can say you accused me of vandalism. BRD doesn't apply to vandalism which you accused me of. As per BRD: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." Nor does WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism)."
So, I could remove or archive my talk page to hide the 3RR reports like your 35 AN visits. It isn't in good faith to bring it up as it makes the assumption that I am here to hurt the project. So I don't us roll over when some editor that just wants to have it their way. Some editor will game the 3RR rules and just revert and not show up for discussions until force at the point of 3RR to discussion. No, bring up blocks and warnings is not ironic is an attempt at cowing me to give in to their opinion like I am some lesser editor because I run into the wrong editors forcing issues to 3RR. Spshu (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I was going to reply to you in a rebuttal of your last post, but in reading your posts I feel that discussing the issue would be unproductive. Not because I feel that I'm right and you're wrong or visa versa, but because I feel that there is no point beyond this. I have term papers I have to write, not because I decide not to engage you. As you may have noticed, my editing has been minimal for the last few weeks. College calls, Happy editing. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 17:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disk Wars[edit]

I will admit that I too did not check the source links beforehand over at the Disk Wars page. However as the person citing that some of the info is unsourced, at least check if all of the source links have relevant info that can connect to the page. The T.M Revolution link also sources the kids and voice actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I don't understand why you remove my contribution. I checked my sources and watched the show. So, I think I knows a thing or two about it too. Everybody is allowed to contribute to Wikipedia as long they don't make themselves nuisance. My english might not be 100% correct (because it's not my mother language) but I don't see anything wrong with adding a description in the character section about Captain America and Wasp. Have a nice day. comment add by (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Because you have no source and it make no sense what so ever. " He shows himself to be a smart-mouth and a pefectionnist (after Peter Parker and Peper, a slavedrive)" What? That is total nonsense. What you have added is a "nuisance". Nuisance is adding information with out a source. They also have their own article. Also, you didn't add info on Captain America and Wasp it was about Ironman and Thor. Spshu (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Good evening. well, that strange because I did add info about Captain America and Wasp too. I understand that someone has to play the "manager", otherwise this article will be chaotic and it's great that this article receive attention. But there is not a wirtten source for everything. Sometimes the "original material" is much more important because everything written is already an interpretation. In archeology, for example, if your sources say that the artifact is blue, but you have it in front of you and see it's red. What should you trust : the sources or your eyes ? In this case, Marvel Disk Wars : The avengers just starts being brodcast in Japan and isn't completely translate yet. It is normal there is not many references avaible. There should be a way to cite the episodes as sources and they should be seen that way too, at least for the characters developpement and the summaries. It's a little like analysing a movie. If you do the work correctly, you will watch it and not only referred yourself on what was written. You don't need to be aggressive about it. If people post a comment, it is to open a dialogue and learn more. As I was pointing out earlier, my english is not perfect. So, I could have failed to explain myself correctly. I apologise for being a nuisance then. But there should be a way to use the serie itself as a source. Since you know a lot about wikipedia, I will be interested to know if it is possible. Thank you for reading and taking interest in Marvel disk wars : the avengers. comment by (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin closure[edit]

Please read WP:NAC and WP:NACD. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edit at DXD AU before you closed the discussion (& have sense reverse it). Secondly, you didn't read NAC which states: "Contrary to popular belief, especially among newer editors, discussions are not a vote. Administrators use rough consensus to determine the outcome." Since, the opposition was opinion based not policy base, you should have waited for an administrator, relisted, or closed for deletion. Consensus is not a vote, but that is what you did. But most administrator think that way too. DXD AU doesn't even met Notability as it base on 1 outside source. Spshu (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean in that first sentence, as I closed the discussion many hours ago. As for the result, I could not imagine any administrator coming to any other conclusion than a keep outcome in that case, so the consensus was clearly uncontroversial in my view. That last sentence and indeed the original nomination itself suggest that you haven't read Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability - if so, I would strongly recommend doing so. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I though you were calling me out on my reversion of your removal of the AfD notice at as I came from an unclosed AfD discussion then went back to find it closed. That page must not have cleared from my cache.
Consensus needs to be based on policy/guidelines at AfD, so votes not based on policy/guidelines which where basically all the keep votes. Keep votes that even indicated that it was one item: " an international franchise...", "An internationally successful franchise". "valid channels" was one invalid reason. Just because an item exists doesn't automatic grant it a WP article. etc. etc.
I never suggest Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, it is sourcing which was point out by myself to counter Nate. Considering I have done the research on the DXD just to build a new list of DXDs, I should now whether or not there is enough sources to make them notable. As I point out at the AfD may the Canadian version may be notable but not more than a paragraph or two.
It is disturbing that you have show that you have not even read the AfD then other than the votes. Spshu (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
This entire discussion seems bizarre to me. Wasn't one of the pages you nominated for deletion that very list you just mentioned? (And yes, you adding back the notice was indeed what I meant, but a cache taking that long to update would seem quite strange to me.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Votes have to give a valid reason for their vote to count, really simple. The list was original added to the main DXD article (so it would cover all versions) then some one reverted it. Figure no sense in edit warring over it when return it to user space than add it back latter. Spshu (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I did read the entire discussion before closing it (and I don't appreciate your accusation to the contrary). As far as I can tell, you did not even address what was probably the strongest counterargument made on that page - that the single article (or was it two, since you later mentioned a programming list?) you proposed would become extremely large if all of the information from the other articles was added to it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Well indicating that I should read Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability when I indicate that sourcing/notability and duplication/forking is the problem for the nation/market articles doesn't match up with reading the AfD discussion. The information was duplicated in each article ie. content forking showing same programs after same programs, so no the article would not be extremely large. Look at this version of DXD and tell me that it would be extremely large (if I read the line number right it went down by six lines). The list would be for programming that already exists that is the bulk of the version information. Secondly, you closed it before I could reply to Forbesy 777 who brought it up in a post today at 1:54 PM while you closed at 2:02 PM. But basically it was address to begin with as the reason given was forking. Rolling up duplicated articles would reduce total used space on the server. Spshu (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I think the issue here is that you seem not to have noticed (correct me if I'm wrong here) that the lists are significantly different between the articles. Simply merging them would just not be possible. (I will admit, though, that I did not notice the date on that comment you mention - had I noticed it I might have held off closing the discussion a little longer.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the sources at a few of them.... Australia sources indicate about 11 programs while listing 21. Canada's has current shows source with 22 listed plus the former programs unlisted. The rest of the article have unsourced programming. So what is listed has to do more with person memory than sourcing. Spshu (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the lists have problems with sourcing - but the thing is, so does pretty much every "List of programs broadcast by" page I've seen on Wikipedia. I'd say the thing to focus on in that regard is to add sources (including archived sources for former programs) instead of removing what may be entire lists. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
So, a core show which would show on all DXD channels should be listed and sourced on 13 different articles instead of one article. With sections for market specific program, wow, easier to look at see what was a core program versus a localized show. This is a voluntary effort, not a make more work for the editor actually doing the work -- me. Jetix's programming list got so bad that an administrator dumped all the information there and restarted from scratch. And that is more fragmented than DXD as Jetix Europe was a partly public corporation. Spshu (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you should have proposed that instead, then. I'm done here. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Jetix 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Doing the same thing at Marvel Comics[edit]

You have begun an edit-war at Marvel Comics, going so far as to gratuitously label an edit you disagree with as "vandalism." It clearly was not, and was adhering to longstanding WPC practices. Before making a unilateral, undiscussed, over-the-top change affecting hundreds of articles, DISCUSS it, please, or I will ask an admin to intervene. WP:BRD, like it says above. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Except both of you never looking into the matter. The previous was already discussed and the editor continued against what he agreed to on the talk page. Spshu (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Steve (or Steven) Rogers, not Steven Grant Rogers[edit]

Please actually read what a citation links to before assuming you are right and undoing a valid edit. Check out the talk page for List of Avengers members. (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USDTV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifetime (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) 08:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Disney XD (Australia)[edit]

Please stop reverting my edits. There are sources for the programming. There are many such as the Foxtel TV guide and the website. At least look on the TV guide for proof. (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Then stop adding edits that have no reliable sources or primary sources. Spshu (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The programs are sourced. Look at the tv guide to prove that they air. That is what Forbesy 777 did to the programs. The editor checked the TV guide and the website. Please stop reverting my edits. (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No they are not PROPERLY SOURCED. TV Guides are not WP reliable sources. Stop reverting my edits and read my explanations. Spshu (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Apparently you hate Disney XD according to this Afd. Please stop reverting my edits. If the Tv guide says the show, then that means it airs. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
You think that AfD has any thing to do with hate Disney? Really? Did you dig up all the Disney article that I revamp from being nearly unsourced? Nope, because the AfD was all that you could come up with. What is in the TV Guide can preempted, so no that doesn't mean that they air nor any adding any references. Spshu (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

DisneyToon page abbreviations[edit]

Abbreviations can be confusing for readers (and until your edit there was no reference as to what they meant) that is why I initially spelled them out. It was for clarity. I still think that someday the abbreviations should be removed and everything spelled out.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The abbreviations were there previous to your edit. Abbreviations are so company (since there were references to another company), Disney Consumer Products, and DisneyToon Studios are not used repetitively. Spshu (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
After looking at the history, that's true, the abbr. meanings were already there. Sorry that I didn't notice. Although I don't think that spelling them out is necessarily repetitive. But I digress.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The 7D cast sources[edit]

Hi, I reverted the cast and crew list references for The 7D to point to the Disney press release on April 3, as that is the earliest of the articles to name the cast members for the show. The Animation World article was posted April 25 and rewords the press release. Similarly, Broadway World uses the press release information. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

However, per WP:PRIMARY, the third party sources should be used. I didn't add the Broadway World source as I didn't need it as other sources included the information source from that article. You are however removing, Entertainment Weekly, which I have tagged as a notability source as it is a major entertainment magazine/news source. Spshu (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it is reliable per WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY, there are no interpretation issues that would require that to have a secondary source. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
That is not what WP:PRIMARY states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources..." Articles are not suppose to rely on primary sourced information, better to save it for information that isn't available via other sources, like what role Lord Starchbottom fills. Spshu (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, the secondary source makes sense. It's just that McLean was paraphrasing the primary source, yet presenting it as first-hand knowledge, especially the listing of what shows the cast have previously been noted for, although he adds his own spin on the wording such as "haplessly plot to dethrone the queen" instead of "haplessly plot to overthrow the kingdom". I wanted to ensure that there was knowledge of the press release which prompted the secondary sources. I agree to keep Lord Starchbottom's description until the secondary sources reference it. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


I understand that this network was rebranded (FYI), but since the owner is the same and the Bio. page is short, there is no need for a new page. For examples of this Wikipedia tradition in play for recent rebrandings, see: CBS Sports Network, Destination America, Esquire Network, Fox Sports 2, TruTV, Velocity, and many others... -- Chris1294 July 8, 2014‎ 16:37

But Bio will still/may exist over in other countries. For other similar rebranding with no change in ownership there are two different articles:
Second, "FYI," is incorrectly picking up the channel's name from the stylized logo. Spshu (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Disney Channels Worldwide[edit]

I think you misunderstood my edit. Per WP:COLOUR, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information." Also per the same section, the background colour chosen made it very difficult to read.

There are several different ways todo background colour, your way (<font>) is not the preferred way for tables. 1) <font> is obsolete HTML, but this is just minor 2) look for "bgcolor="gray" in the article's history. That is the best way for tables. Bgwhite (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

??? How else would I show BSkyB runs a license Sky Movies Disney and show that there was previous a Disney run Disney Cinemagic and that Disney runs all other Disney Channels in the UK? bgcolor is not a container tag like the font tag is. Spshu (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Now you have marked all Disney channels as being run by licensee since you just stripped out the color. Look if you intent to remove the color then properly replace the color. Spshu (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not about what show is or isn't Disney, it is only about Accessibility guidelines. The very dark grey made it hard for people to read. It made it impossible for screen readers (aka the blind) to know the information.
  1. There MUST be some other way to identify the information besides colour.
  2. The way you added colour was done wrong.
  3. If you want to change the color, do it right and you pick the colour. I've been yelled at one too many times when just changing colour. People scream alot louder when changing colour over just removing it.
Bgwhite (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Shows? What are you talking about?
You are enforcing accessibility guidelines to the point of destroying the content/information. No this is about you mucking the content up to making the information unintelligible as much as you claim the coloring does. You made it look like BSkyB owns all the UK channels not just the one it should show. That makes in unintelligible.

I just point out that if you think 1,2,3 you don't yank the color with out #1. "...identify the information besides colour". Based on the information need using font tag is the only container tag available -- do you comprehend? I used the "bgcolor="gray" as I Designed the table, since not all items in a table cell necessarily needed Listen to your own points. You did not do #1 when you removed the color. Thus you show that you are an !&()_1()7 and should be yelled at. You added back a bunch of stuff that was incorrect too. You when and removed the color like that was not acceptable either, so why are you bringing up #3? With your edit, the screen readers would have pick it up as the same jumble mess as what you claim is a problem!!!!! Spshu (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

First off, stop shouting and yelling. I won't participate in any discussion with that kind of crap. It is also obvious you haven't read WP:COLOUR. It is hard to have a discussion when doesn't read and only vents because of frustration or ignorance.
  1. As I said earlier, "background colour chosen made it very difficult to read." As many people would be unable to read the information because of the very dark background, I removed the background. If a group of people are unable to read content because of a design consideration, the design consideration goes.
  2. I'm not removing anything. I have told you that you can add back the colour. You can choose your colour based on WP:COLOUR... Best if not red, green or dark. Pastels tend to work best. WP:COLOUR also contains a link to Help:Using colours.
  3. Just make sure something else tells the info besides the color. The most common way is to use symbols, such as star or cross. From WP:COLOUR, "Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information."
  4. <font> is not used anywhere on Wikipedia. The article contained two ways to do colour. One for colouring the entire row. One for colouring just one cell. See Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters for help. The help page uses <span> tags, but "bgcolor="gray" can be substituted.
Bgwhite (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
First off, yelling is all CAPS. Bold is to stress with out yelling. So, stop repeatedly accusing me of doing something that I did not do. No, I have read WP:COLOUR, once again false accusations. The venting of frustration is because you are not paying attention to the discussion. You are the cause!!! Because you are responding in ignorance of what I have said. Since your responses don't correspond to what I said. Thus you are acting in ignorance of the discussion. Because I go to make the correction you want but you mess up the article, since you didn't even follow your own direction as pointed out in the previous post.
You state "... I removed the background." in 1. then 2. "I'm not removing anything." So you did now you attempt to claim that you didn't. But you want 3 but remove the background info that would have made it easier for me to do so.
So now that you have ignored, attacked and lied to me. Go away. You are banned from my talk page. Spshu (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
And thus we have the classic internet moronic troll syndrome.... Instead of the topic, one results to name calling and get lost in anger. "Thus you show that you are an !&()_1()7 and should be yelled at. ". (emphisis yours) You are saying you are yelling by your own admission. Your are name calling by your own admission. The points you brought up are answered in WP:COLOUR and in my retort. You may have read WP:COLOUR, but you didn't read it. You selectively quote, I said, I didn't remove anything because you can add it back. I also said people cannot' see the text as is.
It is your choice to yell, scream and "ban". Big deal. I could care less. In the end, you are the one hurting the article as you don't want to follow accessibility guidelines and the five pillars of Wikipedia. You are the one not adding back in the color correctly. I've shown you where the info is found to add color back in. You choice.... Good bye. Bgwhite (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Jetix and Toon Disney programming[edit]

Hi, it looks like someone's adding Jetix programs again for List of programs broadcast by Toon Disney. I remember they were spun off to the other article, but should they be listed in both places? -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Jetix 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AlanS (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Jetix is shut down. Can't you see that the IP editor is adding false information? The information is unsourced and thus WP:PROVEIT. I have requested page protection if you bothered to check. So pay attention to what is going on instead slapping some with a false warning for trying to stop a vandal. Spshu (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the IP editor in question has been blocked now. I've declined the protection request for that reason, but if it starts up again submit another request and it'll likely get approved.--Slon02 (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
2601:2:5780:1CB:1C50:9DAE:D1AA:92E8 was blocked, however is not. Spshu (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Xploration whatever[edit]

I haven't been following it lately since I've been trying to stay away from Ttll's disputes (they've been arguing over what to call an unaired show on Vortexx for the last month, whether unaired or other; I say unaired, they want other, I'm not going to get blocked for that so I withdrew). I personally implored for more sources when I created the RD for Xploration, but they're usually deaf ear notes. Nate (chatter) 01:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Disney XD TV channels[edit]

Regarding List of Disney XD TV channels, you didn't answer my question, how are you ordering the table? Also, could you please be more specific about what sourced information I removed? I am still hoping to improve the list. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.
The table is sortable. I started the table with the Jetix and Toon Disney tables, so the default is date of first channel change over.
The MAVISE database treats the time shift and HD as channels not feeds (not sure than what is the diff) which you indicated that you remove some HD channels. Some times I used a higher level in the database were you might have to drill down for that info. Also, the fact that in Canada it replace a planned channel Family Extreme and is under the control of a Trust. DHX has agreed to buy, but regulators haven't approve it yet. The Russian IPTV channel was missing. Spshu (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 July[edit]

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) 00:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Information icon Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at KBJR-TV. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. There is a certain style and format that the majority of TV station articles use, particularly in regards to the infobox and presence of digital subchannels. Could you please STOP trying to force your practices under the guise of "cleanup"? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

How about you STOP trying to force your practices under the guise:
  1. of claiming that I " assume ownership of articles".
  2. that it is the practice of all TV station article use
  3. It is clean up, but you didn't bother to look that they returned: Newscast titles, Station slogans, News team (unnotables) - all unsourced. You even removed the DT2 image.
Also, you are using (small) which isn't to be used in infoboxes as the text is already adjusts it to small (thus making even smaller) as I understand it.
And really their isn't any style or format for the subchannel and affiliation fields in the info boxes as suggested as they are misleading. So, to format those differently so as to take over for the digital subchannel table isn't a bad thing. Spshu (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Major film studio[edit]

The "group" you keep reverting it back to is at best just a paper-only division within SPE covering Columbia and maybe TriStar, and is NOT clearly referenced as the actual "parent" of ANY studio (much less Columbia). SPE is well-known as the immediate corporate parent of *ALL* of Sony's studio arms (including the lesser ones), and is well-documented as such (until late 2013 Columbia's logo used the tagline "A Sony Pictures Entertainment Company"; then it was shortened to "A Sony Company" like most of the others). SPE is the closest equivalent in Sony's corporate structure of most of the others listed in the "Studio Parent" column; the one most like CTMPG is Paramount Motion Pictures Group, but then there's not many alternatives in "new" Viacom's corporate structure between the parent & Paramount proper (especially after CBS got the TV side -- yes I know this is about films, but all the major studios except Paramount also shoot TV shows on their lots). Maybe YOU need to reconsider... --RBBrittain (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, FYI (TV network)[edit]

Your article, FYI (TV network) has been marked for speedy deletion because it covers a topic on which we already have a page –