User talk:Renamed user 3429187546

Welcome!

Hello, BrickMaster02, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Red Director (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:American Idol Live 2015.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:American Idol Live 2015.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:American Idol Live 2015 Poster.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello, I'm AldezD. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not add unsourced information or change content based upon your own WP:OR as you did in this edit. AldezD (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TheSubstituteLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TheSubstituteLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Squad

What makes you say the number I gave for the 6th episode isn't the actual rating? Wubzy (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ratings you provided were for the Nick Jr. airing at 8 PM, while I provided the ratings for the original 9 AM airing on Nickelodeon. BrickMaster02 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2019 in American television, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 13:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NickUnfilteredLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NickUnfilteredLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TheAstronautsLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TheAstronautsLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol Season 19 Finale Date

Why did you get rid of the source of the American Idol Season 19 Finale date? Lonniemitchell22 (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because who knows if it could get moved back. Personally, I'd rather wait until the finale actually airs instead of jumping ahead. BrickMaster02 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings Data for 101 Dalmatian Street

Since the series has aired on Disney XD USA, I was wondering if you could add the data of the ratings for each when they first premiered in the US. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, More Data....

I want you to insert the ratings dats for the Amphibia episode "True Colors", the 101 Dalmatian Street episode "Fetch"/"Don't Push Your Luck", the The Chicken Squad episodes that have aired so far and the HouseBroken episode "Who Did This?".

That is absolutely impossible. The only site to cover those ratings, Showbuzz Daily, shut down and no one knows what they were. Sorry, but you're gonna have to deal with that. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Hello, I'm Bcschneider53. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Common Knowledge (game show) that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please refrain from edit summaries such as this one and settle disagreements with civility on the talk page. No need for public personal attacks on anonymous IPs (or anyone else) like that. Thank you. Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't blame you. I didn't feel alright after posting that. I'm willing to accept my consequences. BrickMaster02 (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop it. Stuff like this will make for a very short editing career here if you are not careful. Do NOT rise to the bait, please. Thank you DBaK (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I do get it, I really do, and indeed I have seen that IP vandalizing and have tried to help with that myself. But, honestly, the simple fact is that if you react with incivility you put yourself in the wrong with them! I know it is annoying but the rules here are designed to try to stop things escalating. (And no, they don't always work!) So I will just say good luck, count to 10, and Happy Editing! Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Test (2005)

Please clean-up the episode list to the series, as it tends to go by production order rather than US broadcast order. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good. Thanks for the request, though. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it!!!

Why do you revert my edits on List of programs broadcast by TeenNick?, I only removed some fake and unsourced information, and updated according to the current status, and I think is very irrelevant to list every movie that has aired on every network, we don't wanna list every film that has aired on TeenNick, that list is unverificable, and olny list the movies thas have aired on the NickRewind block, please, do not undo my edits again!!!--SCD0392 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...please stop it. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GhostForce

I currently have a sandbox for the show. It doesn't have an actual article yet and there is currently only two episodes on the episode list. Can you please help me construct it? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do my own articles, thank you very much. BrickMaster02 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viewership counts for episodes 30-35 of 101DS

Find any viewership data on ShowBuzz Daily? If so, I'm happy. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please, for the love of God, stop going to my talk page and requesting things that I'm never going to do? The ratings are not on Showbuzz and are only on SpoilerTV. Good day. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:FamJamLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FamJamLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page history

Hello, I'm ToBeFree. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Severe storm 28 04:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from The Adventures of Paddington (2019 TV series) into Draft:List of The Adventures of Paddington episodes. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a draft, and a lot of the episode lists I've seen for TV shows copy the first part of the original page. Why am I always attacked on this website? BrickMaster02 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended as an attack. I'm just letting you know that attribution is always required whenever you copy text from another article that you didn't originally write yourself, which is what happened in this case. That requirement is also true for any episode list that copies from the parent article. DanCherek (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of The Adventures of Paddington episodes has been accepted

List of The Adventures of Paddington episodes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Promised Land (2022 TV series). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Renamed user 3429187546 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel really bad about what I did, and I have learned my lesson. Even though I "tried" to clean up, it didn't work and I don't care anymore. I really want to make a change and not argue with people on this site, and I can't do that if I'm blocked. Please unblock me, and I swear I will never do anything like this ever again. And if I do, you have the right to permanently ban me from this site.

Decline reason:

This does not address your edit warring and your refusal to collaborate. What would you do differently if unblocked? How would you resolve this problem, if it happens again? Yamla (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

{unblock|reason=On Promised Land (2022 TV series), I was trying to clean up the episode table, have each label (Director, Writer, Original air date) layered. I just thought YoungForever was undoing my changes out of spite. Turns out I was the one who undid her changes out of spite. If I was unblocked and resolved this problem, I would actually give an explanation in the edit summary or go on the talk page in advance and discuss more in-depth. BrickMaster02 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

Block has expired. --Yamla (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. One, have you read WP:NPA? Two, users are rarely ever permanently banned, even in severe cases like this. They're almost always just indefinitely blocked, which means the block can still be appealed. Also, if things start getting heated between you and another editor, you should stop, and step away. I understand that may be hard to do sometimes (heck, even sometimes I have a hard time staying cool in certain situations) but you should always make an effort to de-escalate the situation. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I’m not getting unblocked? BrickMaster02 (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. That's for an admin to decide, not me. IF you aren't unblocked it'd be best for you to wait a bit before appealing your block again and take that time to read through some of the relevant policies. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last admin that saw my appeal said "you need to take more than a week away from Wikipedia". Some admin, amirite? BrickMaster02 (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given what happened, that would probably be in your best interest. Getting blocked and then appealing it only a few hours doesn't really show that you've learned much (if anything). I'm not accusing you of being stupid though, that's just usually what happens. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? That’s not really helping. I just want to be unblocked, and not want this community to hate me. BrickMaster02 (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to help you out here. I see you're already starting to get agitated again. Please, calm down and just take a moment to review the policies that are relevant to your block. If I hated you I wouldn't be trying to help you out. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you kinda aren’t. I don’t have a resolution to have my appeal approved. BrickMaster02 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #55268

is closed. Thanks @Blaze Wolf: for trying to help. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I saw the user's unblock request as sincere but not quite enough for them to be unblocked so I attempted to help them by telling them some things they need to address. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So much for helping me. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well you pretty much told me that you didn't want my help so I stopped attempting to help. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, I need your help. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Unfortunately I can't see the reason for decline in your UTRS appeal since that's limited to only admins (and I'm not one, despite what some people think), so that makes it a bit harder since I don't know why it was declined and can't help you address the concerns in it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I checked. He said this:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block. PLEASE see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Points to PONDER: EDIT WARRING is wrong even if one is right. ANY ARGUMENTS in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal. CALLING ATTENTION to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior. To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what this all means.

I'm currently writing another block appeal request. ::::::I'm currently writing another block appeal request. Update: This is the message I got after trying to send my new appeal:

It has been detected that you or someone else is trying to spam our system with appeals. Please wait until your previous appeal is closed, or if it's already closed, please try again later.

BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think first you should read the relevant policies, such as WP:EW and WP:BRD (which is not a policy but a supplement to other policies). When I'm editing, if I make an edit that I think is right and I Get reverted, and I don't think the other editor is right, instead of immediately reverting, I start a discussion on the talk page, asking them why they think their edit is right so we can reach an understanding. Now, that doesn't necessarily work if the editor simply ignores your talk page message and continues doing their edit (which you can see that situation happening at Ong Seong-wu). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I totally get that. I just want to get unblocked without waiting a week. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the "spam appeals" thing is about (or how to fix it since I haven't been blocked before). Also, you may just have to wait a week to be unblocked. Remember, there is no deadline.― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Renamed user 3429187546 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "BrickMaster02". The reason given for BrickMaster02's block is: "Edit warring; personal attacks (filed a report against the other editor at WP:AIV; refusal to collaborate (reverted the other editor's attempt to discuss the dispute on the article Talk page)".

Blocking administrator: ‪Bbb23‬ (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Block no longer exists. Yamla (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Paramount+. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen the above; you're already edit-warring a week after coming out of a week-long block for the exact same reason? Navigation boxes are for navigation, not linkless text. -- Alex_21_TALK 00:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:YoungForever. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Says the person that told me to "Go away", but I've decided not to speak up and instead stay quiet, so I'm done. BrickMaster02 (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Go away" is not a personal attack. Calling someone "arrogant" is personal attack. Please learn the differences. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Disney XD

Only one other Disney XD list-of article for the United Kingdom exists among all the DXD networks, many of which are now defunct or about to be; I just removed the Latin American version which had ONE source and was duplicative of this list, along with Jetix and Fox Kids, and every other list among these defunct networks has a blazing 'unsourced' tag on the top. There's no point to maintain these lists when one united list-of article can cover it all, thus my reason for reverting the 'U.S.' part (and it doesn't have anything saying 'just American' in the title). Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the concern above; the point of talk pages is to discuss issues, and I feel I do have a valid reason for changing the above page. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't care about this anymore. Go ahead if you want, I'm not in charge of the page. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you argue about the addition so vehemently? You need to learn how to work out conflicts much better than 'whatever, do what you want' when you get exhausted with something like others have tried before above. I was willing to work with you on this issue, but obviously you see edit priorities much differently than most. Nate • (chatter) 00:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the program lists for Nicktoons and Disney Junior have the same thing. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This personal attack is uncalled for. Please be kind to other editors, even if you disagree with them or they're vandalizing. Nate • (chatter) 03:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly OddParents: Fairly Odder logo

No clue if I did this right... How did you get this image to be a fully transparent background? (for reference, the logo is available on the Nickelodeon website.) Magitroopa (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're asking me out of everyone else, but I just found it on the Nick website and cropped out the excess empty space. BrickMaster02 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Burns vandal

If the editor most recently on Special:Contributions/2603:300A:F00:3000:0:0:0:0/64 reappears with Steve Burns vandalism, let me know. We might need to get an edit filter created to stop this user. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Sunmist (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please just cut out all of the profanities and telling people to "go away" in edit summaries. In fact, do not attempt to talk to people in edit summaries at all. Use them for the purpose that's there in their very name: to summarize an edit. They're there for the benefits of other people to scan through an edit history to locate who did what and when, not to be used as a chat tool. "go away" doesn't tell us what happened to the article or why.

Look at my edit summary of Special:Diff/1081883901, for example. I said why I did what I did in the edit, and that is it. Special:Diff/1081941063 is an edit summary from someone else, likewise just summarizing the edit. I'm also talking with the writer of the article, but using a talk page for that, not edit summaries. And we're getting along well.

You're clearly finding it difficult to control your feelings in edit summaries, so the best thing to do is just impose a blanket rule on yourself never to use edit summaries to do anything other than summarize an edit. When you find yourself tempted to do so, pause. Try to aim for the plain unadorned descriptivity of Special:Diff/1081682285, everywhere.

Uncle G (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Burns/Donovan Patton vandalism

Came upon this IP range (that is now blocked) earlier tonight with the same Steve Burns/Donovan Patton vandalism I'd previously seen on other articles (ex: [1] [2] [3] [4]). I definitely remember seeing this same sort of vandalism on a previous article(s?), but can't remember when/where at all. Would you possibly have any clue?... Magitroopa (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it in the same range as the informal TUFF Puppy reunion adder on pages like the Mario movie? Kinda curious--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you guys are coming to me, a guy who was blocked twice, to answer this. I don't focus on that stuff usually, I just report and move on. I would not be surprised if it is the same person, though. BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holey Moley Season 4 Episode one progress table

Hey BrickMaster02, I thought you were gonna add the progress table for the Season 4 premiere episode. But I don't see it. Do you think you can add it soon?74.96.187.96 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do that stuff. Sorry. BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then who does add the tables and when do you think they'll be uploaded? 74.96.187.96 (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How would I know? I just add the viewers. BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of Amphibia episodes, you may be blocked from editing. Again, the press site is broken with the 307 code being repeated. Haven't you checked? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibia

Why are you ignoring the note?--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't go by what the production codes were for that episode. Sure it's both for a double-length episode, but it's still Episode 17. If you want to be 18, why not change the 17 on the episode list to 17 and 18? BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it’s not about being a double length episode. Did you read the note? The one right next to what you were reverting? It’s not about how many episodes in the season have aired, it’s the amount of episodes in the season overall CreecregofLife (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the overview says 18. So why not go ahead and change it if you have a problem with my edits? BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Shark's Big Show!

Why did you revert my edit without reasons ? Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count airdates outside of Korea and the U.S. BrickMaster02 (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thanks. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chapa's last name

They revealed Chapa's last name in Unmasked earlier tonight. Did I spell it wrong? Connor Marini (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was already revealed back in one of the final Henry Danger episodes, so I don't think it's worthy to add that in the article. Then again, I don't have cable anymore, so what do I care? BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A highly committed sock.

Hi. I noticed you have sent a warning to user True to the Music. I have started many SPIs on this user but I can't be bothered to do so again. It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fourlaxers/Archive NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toasy Cake Fan 100 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^This is also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fourlaxers/Archive

Children's TV, especially Thomas & Friends and Power Rangers, are their area. Enjoy and sorry.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Transformers: Earthspark shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Can you please stop undoing everything on List of Paramount Global television programs please? If you do so you won't do that again. 82.37.139.114 (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly You are Edit Warring, Edit Warring is not allowed on wikipedia Chip3004 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Disney+ originals in Disney Channel

Please include the Disney+ originals show within Disney Channel programming. Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon have included shows from HBO Max & Paramount+, respectively. It's usually the shows produced by their studios (eg. Nick Animation Studio, CN Studios, WB Animation). MegaSmike46 (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Those shows for Nick and CN are regularly airing, while the ones from Disney+ were to promote those shows. BrickMaster02 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. However, until further notice, let's agree to keep Disney+ separate. MegaSmike46 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

America Says win rate

Hi BrickMaster02, you seen to be well-versed in America Says, adding the new episodes to Wikipedia as they air. Do you happen to know the win rate across all the games or know where i might be able to find that info? I can't find it anywhere after some extensive googling! Thanks 2600:1007:B11E:884C:5889:186B:6C9:DD8C (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. I only update the page when new episodes air, because no one else does it. Sorry. BrickMaster02 (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information and thanks for keeping us up to date on the America Says game facts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B11E:884C:5889:186B:6C9:DD8C (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing my edits

Why did you undo my edits on Are You Afraid of the Dark? page then re add it make it look like it was your idea to add the producers? All you had to do was add what you added without UNDOING my edits first. It makes what I did look like I did something wrong!! ACase0000 (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention. I just re-added them and put the years they served as EP. Don't assume what I'm doing is wrong. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't your intention, then you should have never did. Do not undo my next edit on the page, please. --ACase0000 (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Why did you revert my edit of "Chibiverse", as well?Inkan1969 (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't make any sense, and it's most likely false. It doesn't fit the article anyway. BrickMaster02 (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually saw the TV viewing and recorded it. The messed up broadcast was also widely reported.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnKuk1XXLV0 Inkan1969 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't matter. It's not going in the article, and that's final. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it not go into the article? Inkan1969 (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any sense, and doesn't pertain to the rest of the article. Stop replying to me. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, it doesn't make any sense? The section was about Release, and this what happened when the episode was released. The edit described what happened. Inkan1969 (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't matter. You don't see the Lilo & Stitch article mention the porn incident from 2012. Because that wouldn't make sense. Your contribution will never ever make it into the article, so stop bugging me for once and for all. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Inkan1969: I apologize if you've been frustrated with the above responses, and I will now warn you BrickMaster; your tone is inappropriate and combative, and this is again a warning to keep calm and cool. You aren't helping anyone getting into minor editing disputes that can be answered quickly and calmly, as I'm about to do here.

Inkan, as the article makes clear that the first episode was uploaded to YouTube before the premiere, and as most television watching these days occurs online rather than on a channel at a stubborn time, noting channel technical faults (as terrible as they might be, and I do agree I'd be frustrated watching it that way; also I'm inclined to believe this did really happen) with its Disney Channel premiere isn't notable, as the episode was available a short time later without glitching on DisneyNow and cable on demand and likely aired trouble free on the Pacific Time Zone feed (I hope so at least). Unless there's a major technical issue that takes down a network for over a day or the episode never aired, we don't usually note that. I hope that answers why the reversion was made, and I again apologize it took so long for a proper response to your question. Nate • (chatter) 00:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing things up, Nate. I appreciate the reply. Inkan1969 (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning, then

I was not done yet, and "Was just a single edit, jeez..." is clearly incorrect. Almost all your edits, and as far as I can tell all your reverts, lack a proper edit summary. In the DramaRama article you should have seen that there was discussion--there was a link to a WikiProject page too. In general, you seem to suffer from a fairly uncollegial attitude, and not explaining what you are doing only makes that more evident. And then, of course, you revert me, instead of addressing my point, before I could finish it. This, all this, needs to stop. It's a collaborative project, and you simply have to work with other editors. That means explaining what you are doing, and being much more careful when you hit revert. And you should probably read WP:TWINKLEABUSE. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Yeah…

Okay, so you did revert my edit on Amphibia episode list, but on the summary, you just violated WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with the use of The Owl House article. But, I will tell you why I did that edit.

One day, I was checking on the article List of The Simpsons episodes, and I was checking on the first season, and discovered storyboard credits. Thought of reverting at first, but the IP that is making the edits is doing the same to all of the seasons, and since end credits apply to WP:PRIMARY, I joined in not minding it since the IP is not gonna care at all, and added storyboard credits for season 21. The IP did the rest of the seasons though.

I then thought of adding some end credits to some shows, but with animation directors this time. I readded the animation director credits for 101 Dalmatian Street. For Amphibia, that show credits the studios instead of the animators, and was going to add more credits with seasons 2 and 3, until you came in.

Not into any edit wars because I wanted to be in peace, in fact you do have a big history of edit wars but even I get worried of getting block sometimes, and not just you. The internet is crap sometimes, you know… BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Samantha Harris

added a link pointing to GSN

Tug of Words

added a link pointing to GSN

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheBobs9

Please do not interact with this user if at all possible. I have warned them to stay off your page. Let's try and lower the temperature here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samantha Harris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GSN.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

I don't know what is going on with you and me on the List of Paramount Global television programs, you're causing an edit war with me and there was something wrong you revered my edits. Please don't block that article forever. I am not attacking you im actually asking you to stop reverting it. 82.37.139.114 (talk) 82.37.139.114 (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please knock it off with abusing the reply system? This is getting really annoying and I will report you for that, and the addition of disruptive editing. BrickMaster02 (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What, annoy you I would never annoy you what is wrong with you? You're the one who reverted my edits at the List of Paramount Global television programs. 82.37.139.114 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You removed content that was sourced and appeared to be accurate. Please do not do that. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove content that was sourced, in fact I was actually adding missing content. 82.37.139.114 (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarket Sweep

What was wrong with the episode status section? I included citations, are Buzzr's website and The Roku Channel's website not reliable sources? I want to add information about where the show can be watched currently. MightyArms (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't know what got over me, but I would've used a different source for Buzzr instead of the schedule, and that changes day after day. I'll reinstate the edit. BrickMaster02 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzr's website has a "list of shows" on its website here (some of which, bear in mind, are not currently airing on the network, Press Your Luck and Child's Play are two that come to mind). Nonetheless, it's better than nothing. MightyArms (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Vidpro23 has removed content once again and I reverted his edits on my own so could you block that user? 213.107.50.76 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firebuds

Some notes on template formatting on Firebuds - Putting an efn into an empty OriginalAirDate field causes the article to appear in Category:Episode lists with unformatted air dates for maintenance because this is not supported. Can you either (a) add the date it was released on d+ and include the efn, (b) remove the efn for those TBAs, or (c) figure out some other supported way to show the data you're trying to show? I understand the reason for the note (and the data), but as-is, it's not technically supported. (I would ordinarily put this as a content discussion on the article talk, but felt it wasn't warranted - if you do, feel free to move this there - either is fine by me). ButlerBlog (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Television programs

On September 17, 2021 Vidpro23 has removed most content on the List of Universal Television programs article so could you revert his edit and also could you add Loot (TV series), Killing It and Bust Down please? 82.37.139.114 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monster High TV series

Hi, BrickMaster02, could you please reply to me your reason for reverting my edit? I hope you reverted it/them for a reason. Instructions are clear per {{infobox television}}, but sometimes entertainment articles, sources and claims don't go the usual mainstreamers until they get bundled with outlets considered here on Wikipedia as WP:SPS. As I've mentioned on my edit summary, I followed to the detail what is meant for the updates so you would understand. Any doubts?! Check the "Showbuzz Daily" ref and scroll to no. 56 of the top 150 list for the reason for my updates. Please, don't follow on bare sight and revert without proof, be it for better wording as Lockejava would claim or maybe you for better text sight pleasure, as this infuriates editors and readers alike. Wikipedia strives for accuracy and updates, which is why I'm here. So, unless you want to be blocked for any reason for/of which I'll be uninvolved, please don't revert without edit summary reason. Thanks!! Intrisit (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was CLEAR that the supposed "sneak peek" WAS a full episode. For another example of this, check the article for Warped!, where it had a "sneak peek" days before, even though it was a full-length episode. PLUS, the logo bug STILL said "Nick", NOT "Nick@Nite". Maybe if you'd watch it live, you would've seen it. BrickMaster02 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I want to understand what your motivation was to revert every change I have and had made to this topic's page. I know you're patrolling the page like IJBall is with articles related to Disney Channel and Nickelodeon, but every time I add more info to the page, you revert them without explanation. My edits are like "nonsense" to you because of what; I merged sentences into one which sounds better than short sentences. And the "Mattel reboot" and the "2018 reboot of Polly Pocket" has no similar meanings because there've been a lot of Mattel reboots. I want to understand. Intrisit (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to details here, but looking at the reversion, I notice some of the same problematic editing that caused me to revert your changes earlier, namely – the apparent addition of unsourced genres, and far worse the unnecessary changes to ref author and date formats which is once again in violation of WP:CITEVAR. As I have already explained the latter to you before, this is now bordering on clear WP:DE ignoring of a MOS.

I cannot speak to the other changes, which look like they may be OK. But bottom line: BrickMaster02 was well within his rights to revert that, and at this point you should discuss the details (preferably at the article Talk page). But I can't stress this enough: stop messing with the existing references at articles – there is absolutely zero need to do the edits that you are doing on existing references. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall, apologies and it was a mistake of mine pinging you here, but I was just making reference to your patrol of DisChan and Nick articles to this user. But since you've responded, the author and date formats of some of the refs were transferred to this page from another page with that last change I did and so if I should align them to the page to fit with the citevar rule you're stating, all well and good. My problem is that, every time I edit, it gets reverted by this user without explanation. Previously, they weren't hinged on citevar issues until this last edit. If this user had explained his/her previous reversions of my edits which had no citevar issues then, this wouldn't have happened. I'm not surprised you're bringing the citevar rule as a way to say my edits are nonsense. If I add more flesh to the refs without changing the dates to comply with citevar, are those enough grounds to say my edits are worthless?! I was trying to get this statement over to you whiles editing the Disney Channel films list article and articles about Zombies 1, 2 and 3 about 2 months ago, but you didn't respond. It's like now you've brought up WP:DE, I'm blocked from WP or I listen to no one - not even you - and that because of citevar, I can't edit articles of this nature anymore. I'll continue to learn as I edit, as I've already seen with my new user right that there's no reprieve for whoever is editing because of the strict warding off of spam, vandalism and COI.

You also mentioned unsourced genres, it is clearly stated about referencing film/TV genres in the TV infobox; I instead touched the lead section not the infobox. If the citevar is where you see the problem, I'll work on it. I said "I'll work on it" last time about my citevar issues, but you gave me no time or reprieve to remedy this, almost as if you want me blocked off or leave Wikipedia. So, please let me remedy my mistakes and citevar issues and if not done by tomorrow, I'll complain no more. Intrisit (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Former Nickelodeon Programming and related topics

Hello. Can you explain why my edits were reverted on pages such as Template:Curious George, Template:Former Nickelodeon original series, Count Duckula, and List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon? I am especially concerned about Template:Curious George, which I was simply adding another clearly related television series, and Count Duckula, which I provided a source for. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To simply put it: they were NOT original shows produced by the channel. You can put them back on the programs article, but not the templates. Those are only for the shows produced by the network. BrickMaster02 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, SK8-TV and Turkey Television are original Nickelodeon programming that were specifically created by the network and Count Duckula had a source in the article from the LA Times (the one you removed) that stated the original broadcast was on Nickelodeon. Second, that does not address any of my other edits. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @BrickMaster02:, it has been over 48 hours since your last response. I will give you another 24 hours to respond. If you do not, I will presume you are fine with my original edits and I will reinstate them. (Oinkers42) (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're seriously still going with this? You didn't even tell me I have a time limit to reply. I don't care anymore. Put them back on the main article, but NOT the templates, unless they are (co)produced by the network. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Context: Go away is not a valid reason for a Only Warning:Vandalism warning,The edits issued were not vandalism as they were made in Good faith. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TeenNick

Am I supposed to wait until it is on schedule before making the edit?Cwater1 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so, but you adding the Monster High series and adding Loud House back doesn't make sense, as the channel barely airs any Nicktoons. BrickMaster02 (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly Odder, The Really Loud House, will be on schedule November 3. I can wait til then. You are right about The Loud House, it probably won't be on TeenNick long. Probably the same with Monster High. They will be on the main Nickelodeon channel though.Cwater1 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

College Bowl reverts

Please stop reverting my edits. All I am doing is improving the page. They are constructive and useful. I would like to revert my edits peacefully. If you disagree, I'll leave it be. Helloiamauser (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I added back was the one for University Challenge, as that was more useful. Everything else doesn't work, as other game show articles don't have the same formatting. Besides, it makes it look a bit messier, IMO. I think it would best if the page stands as is, since there is nothing wrong and fits more in line with other game show articles on the site. BrickMaster02 (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I see nothing wrong with full years and present. What's so bad about it? Helloiamauser (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my reply. Other game show articles don't have that (like if a show aired in the 21st century), and having "present" isn't allowed, as that would be too much. BrickMaster02 (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firebuds

How was it that what I wrote in the article was "Not really pertaining to the actual plot..."? Isn't writing the plot for a series about the aspects of the series? 104.172.112.209 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what a plot is. It's about the story, not details. We don't need to mention that it's a world where both humans and talking cars co-exist. BrickMaster02 (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the plot with a premise but you still revert. What's wrong with it? 104.172.112.209 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"That's not what a plot is. It's about the story, not details. We don't need to mention that it's a world where both humans and talking cars co-exist." BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing all the Nicktoons (American TV channel) Wikilinks. From a fellow animation fan, good work! –DMartin 04:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Batwheels

Why did you revert my Batwheels edits? I added the directors of all the episodes that have been released, and fixed the episode numbers. TheThomasEnthusiast (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about your contributions. You mentioned some episodes were two or three-parters, even though there isn't a reliable source backing those up. BrickMaster02 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://ui.eidr.org/view/content?id=10.5240/88DE-5E67-B83E-881B-444A-T

I used the Universal Entertainment Identifier Registry. If you go to "relationships" you can find a list of the Batwheels S1 episodes. "Secret Origin" and "Holidays on Ice" are featured on their own, but there are also "Secret Origin of the Batwheels: Part 1" (2, and 3), and "Holidays on Ice: Part 1" (and 2).

I also know this is a reliable source, because most of the episodes they featured in the list have already been released and I found the website about two months ago. Same goes for Bugs Bunny Builders. TheThomasEnthusiast (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you can also see some of the episodes don't have names, such as "Batwheels: Season 1: Episode 15" and "Batwheels: Season 1: Episode 18"

According to this site, there are 40 total episodes of S1 and a season 2 is also in production.

They also have a list of the "Meet the Batwheels" shorts here:

https://ui.eidr.org/view/content?id=10.5240/3A95-53FB-B6B3-5486-6620-3 TheThomasEnthusiast (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it isn't really considered reliable by admin. Don't know why, I think it is, but since you used that source, I'll revert my edit. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G14

You applied a bunch of G14 tags like this. G14 is for specific disambiguation pages. Not a single one of these pages were disambiguation pages. Please read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and ensure you understand the specific criteria before you nominate something for speedy deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: You outrank us both, and agreed these were not disambiguations; can I continue to make the episode redirects for The Ghost and Molly McGee without being harassed by BrickMaster02? Coimenda (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects do NOT need to count. Unless the episode is important in terms of popularity or importance, then a redirect or creation would be warranted. You did this for nearly every episode. BrickMaster02 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

Are you doing okay? In response to the comment implying dark thoughts of a personal nature? / Do you need someone to talk to? Coimenda (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine. I just feel like shit after treating you badly. Whenever I try to make a contribution, even when it's an actually reasonable one, I get called out. BrickMaster02 (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Press Your Luck edited deleted

Why was it deleted? It was well-soruced. 2600:6C50:23F:406E:9A87:8F47:144A:9359 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really needed, and at best, WP:TRIVIAL. A similar instance happened at Who Wants to Be a Millionaire last year, where a marathon was pulled due to coverage on the January 6 attacks. However, no one added that due to it being WP:TRIVIAL. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Gi Oh! Sevens

Thank you for actually giving me a valid reliable source to review with your air date additions unlike the 20 previous others who just assumed the schedule just because its weekly! I applaud you! GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. OK--now I understand why you are yelling: because I warned you a few days ago about this unwise and unexplained edit. You don't seem to realize that unexplained edits are disruptive. I had forgotten about that, no big deal, but you hadn't--unless you go "what the fuck" to everyone. But a look through your talk page's edit history shows that your typical response to any comment here is to simply revert and to start cussing. I'm not sure you understand what Wikipedia is: it is a collaborative project, and you are going to have to get used to that. That means that you'll have to actually respond to editors' concerns--and if you don't, and if you continue to insult them, you might well end up blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am over it, but you aren't if you are going to my page and doing nothing but assume I'm watching a show because I added that a new episode is airing. I don't watch all the shows I update, because no one else does, which is why no one watches them. But you know what? I'm going to keep my mouth shut, as I don't want to risk getting banned again...even though I might be on the verge of it. BrickMaster02 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you start yelling at someone because they think you're watching a TV show, then really, reconsider interacting with other people in the first place. This is ridiculous--did you think you were being accused of child molestation or kicking your dog? I don't give a flying fuck about what you watch or don't watch--I was merely trying to be social, and you go ballistic. But I just looked at your block log, and parts of that makes a bit more sense now. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, you are reverting back to an edit that was already vandalism to begin with. Do you have proof that its WP:COPYVIO? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Phineas and Ferb episodes

Originally I was gonna write the message to you but due to drama on that Drmies made, I had to postponed it a bit. Anyways, I request you to update this list and make it similar to other episodes lists in the guidelines, especially List of The Loud House episodes, due to the renewal that had happened. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"International versions" instead of "franchise" pages

Can you explain why you made these two page moves? It's not the standard Wikipedia naming convention. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes were made because a "franchise" is supposed to be more than one entity, like spin-offs and such. Making a page with that word, and having it be nothing but various international versions does not qualify for the title. The categories can stay the same, but not the general name. BrickMaster02 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you contend, then, that there's no such thing as a game show or reality competition franchise? If so, a lot of pages would have to be renamed, and moved out of the Television franchises category. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying. Take a look at the franchise page for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, for instance. Articles like that have a lot of material to fall under the criteria of "franchise". And in terms of international versions, there is a link to the main article. Unless the articles in question have enough material and only consist of international versions, then I don't think they're suitable to have "franchise" in the article's name. BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "material"? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By "material", I'm referring to the history, format, reception, other media, etc. BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the article determines whether something is a franchise or not? That doesn't make sense - someone who did enough research could make a giant article out of even a trifle like Game of Talents. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, I don't think those shows don't deserve to be called "franchises", given how short they've lasted and the lack of information needed for an article called that. BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what your rule is for determining what's a franchise and what's not? It sounds like you're just making a distinction between highly successful and moderately successful franchises. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. If something is hugely popular with dozens of tie-ins, spin-offs, etc, I would personally consider that to be a franchise. Obviously I'm not the one in charge, but in my opinion, Game of Talents and Hollywood Game Night aren't considered to be those, in comparison to more successful game shows like Jeopardy! and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, where they have various spin-offs and so on. BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? doesn't have dozens of tie-ins or spinoffs either... in fact I don't know of any, except maybe a home video game or two. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Millionaire has like two spin-offs (one launched last August in the UK), and a handful of board games and video games for various international versions. BrickMaster02 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So is it just having any spinoffs at all? I'm trying to understand what your rule is. By the way, it didn't take a lot of searching to find that there exists a Hollywood Game Night home game. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that would go perfectly fine with the standard article for the U.S. show. I think it just depends on there spin-offs (if any), if it's actually successful and numerous international versions. Personally, I don't think the twelve international versions of Game of Talents are something to behold, compared to the 100+ international versions of Millionaire or shows along that. But, I'm not the one in charge of these decisions. BrickMaster02 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this calls for an RfC, then. But again, it would be good to know what your rule is; "something to behold" lacks a certain amount of rigor. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding archived links is important

I added archived pages on the Moon Girl page because Twitter is in a weird place right now and it makes sense to add archived links. As for the mentions of they/them as pronouns of a few characters, I only mentioned it because it was part of the dialogue in that episode. Historyday01 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first off, saying that Twitter "is in a weird place right now" is not a valid excuse to add archive links. I'm not gonna stop you on that, but it's the equivalent of saying "I added archives from YouTube because they removed dislikes". Second, unless a reliable source mentions that character with pronouns, or a citation to the episode itself, it's most likely gonna be reverted due to it being WP:TRIVIAL. Sorry to tell you this, but that's the truth. BrickMaster02 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Court and Judge Mathis

The link you posted is for one about James Corden and is from last year. I've reverted the affected articles (including 2023 in American television). Do not revert it again. TheCatLife (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Fixing it right now. BrickMaster02 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Carr's Epic Gameshow

Could you please stop reverting my edits to Alan Carr's Epic Gameshow. Please see ITV (TV network), ITV1 and STV (TV channel) articles for the relevant details as to why I have changed the network back to ITV (TV network), and not just ITV1. GMc (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of WP:AIV

You should know what WP:AIV is for by now. It's clearly not for content disputes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. It's always my fault, and I can't make anyone happy, even when I "try" to contribute. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undid America Says Statistics

Why did you undo statistics, it seems on your page people asked you for the win rate, yet you couldn't provide it... I provided it and you removed it. America says data (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the source you provided is NOT reliable. Second, it is not necessary to add statistics to an article such as that. Sports, I can understand, but not a cable game show about answering survey questions. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source lives on a database of games for America Says and can be verified within the datasource with appropriate querying skills. It holds under the verifiability clause: since it can be verified by the games themselves that have been published.

Second, that's an opinion that's already negated by the mention of the the "perfect game" on the site itself. People are interested in Game Show statistics, such as how many times has a team cleaned the board 3 times in a single game in America Says, as found on the America Says Wikipedia page - "The Canadians". America says data (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that can be useful for the page on the Game Show Wiki, but not here, especially since it's not considered reliable here. Sorry, but that's how the rules work here. BrickMaster02 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you've not addressed either point. I'd like to explain what the perfect game comment is and an appropriate description for reliability on a database source where the events are published. America says data (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you can't do that here WITHOUT a RELIABLE source. Please stop replying to this. BrickMaster02 (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of streaming media services

Why did you delete my updates on streaming service owners? 45.42.111.74 (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the edits were extremely disruptive, and there were no problems with them at all, until you edited. BrickMaster02 (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "extremely disruptive"? I only put the exact information and standardize it. 45.42.111.74 (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't need to add the extra "detail" (adding "Inc." and companies that don't own brands anymore). BrickMaster02 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the "inc." is indicated for certain like Netflix and Disney with company. And some information was relevant like Paramount which is owned by National Amusements. I don't believe there was any justification for deleting my changes. 45.42.111.74 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just think they weren't necessary, as the page was already fine as is. But, I'm not in charge of the site, so you do you. BrickMaster02 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Young Dylan

That one episode was in the Futon Critic listing but was removed. Airdate was April 20th, but it must have been postponed. It will likely be posted again when an airdate is selected. Cwater1 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol (Season 21)

Can you please make an Elimination Chart for the page? All other season pages feature an elimination chart, but not this one yet. Can you please make an Elimination Chart for American Idol (season 21)? Please. 2600:6C48:427F:9122:4CE6:7C7B:4C7E:1CFF (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Supermarket Sweep (franchise)

I have declined your speedy deletion request for Supermarket Sweep (franchise) because the reason you provided is not a valid CSD. If you believe the article needs to be deleted, you should nominate it through articles for deletion. Whpq (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Supermarket Sweep

Hi, your dispute with another user on Supermarket Sweep appears to be devolved into an edit war. Please try to reach consensus on the article's talk page. Merko (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your (mis)use of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

I'm not sure what's going on between you and BrickMaster02, but I don't think your reporting them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism was a proper use of this channel. I don't have time to look into this further, but this looks more like a content dispute. In future, please don't use the AIAV page unless you have a clearly defined, enforceable reason. --Hadal (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol

In the Judges and Hosts section of the American Idol page, can you please add Alanis Morissette and Ed Sheeran to the paragraph about Guest Judges? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:DDC5:34CF:6C96:F91C (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. I think you have a habit of making unexplained reverts, and of edit warring. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said: You're the one that's doing disruptive editing. You didn't discuss this with anyone. Way to jump to conclusions.... That's not to the point. I explained my edits, twice; you did not do so a single time. You have a choice: if you continue edit warring, I will take this to ANI, where editors and administrators can have a good look at your long history of unexplained edits, edit warring, and rudeness. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol (Season 21) Finale

Can you please go to the "American Idol (season 21)" page and fix the finale chart? Too many edits. I would like you to fix this, pronto! 2601:40A:8400:5A40:5C21:5396:7BE9:9C30 (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Craig of the Creek episode list

The parts of "Bernard of the Creek" are billed as separate episodes, like "Capture the Flag War". The entry for the latter lists the titles of the parts individually. I realize that the parts of "Bernard of the Creek" don't have subtitles, but does it make sense to have them listed differently? Zombiewizard45 (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really the case with other double-length subtitle-less episodes such as the "The Other Side" episodes, "Craig and the Kid's Table", "Trick or Creek" and "Winter Break". I'm obviously not the boss of the article, but I'm just saying that those episodes are listed as is, and "Bernard of the Creek" probably should. BrickMaster02 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While true, those multi-parters don't have their own title cards and are billed as half-hour episodes. That's why I believe there's a distinction and that it's shared with "Capture the Flag War". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiewizard45 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pupstruction

Can you please improve this article? I did try my best at improving it but something just seems off since even if the show already premiered, the article may not follow notability. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Why did you revert my edit here? Notrealname1234 (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I had to revert the edits with the red link. Doesn't matter anyway, it's back to normal. BrickMaster02 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reversion

Why revert my latest edit? The article for Tooned Out is still available on the Warner Bros. wiki. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Deca Tilde 23:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use other wikis for sources. Besides, it has been nearly four years since we last heard anything about the show. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning templates

Do not add additional comments to the end of them, and no telling others to go away. Thank you. TheCatLife (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

would you consider ustvdb a reliable source for ratings? It's got quite a few numbers for some recent premieres Xery1234 (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, stop asking me these kinds of things. BrickMaster02 (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of Looney Tunes Cartoons episodes

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Looney Tunes Cartoons episodes, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of Looney Tunes Cartoons episodes

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Looney Tunes Cartoons episodes, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Hi, I've declined your report of The Grand Delusion to AIV. AIV is for vandalism and overt promotional spam only; it is not a board to take anyone you have a disagreement with, nor anyone you feel is editing disruptively. If you have a disagreement with another editor, you should first try to engage with them on the article's talk page, and if that doesn't work, then you can consider taking them to another board (not AIV) for other opinions. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writ Keeper, if I may add: BrickMaster02 has falsely accused me of persistent disruptive editing on the article, when I only made ONE EDIT reverting an edit where he removed sourced content without giving a valid reason for doing so. Also, I fail to understand how I was threatening him, when I left a warning template on his page, told him there was, in fact, a source in the edit he reverted when he said there wasn't, and told him about his history of unexplained reverts via edit summary on top of saying that he failed to address why he felt there wasn't a source. And furthermore, bringing up my block history with relation to a petty dispute is uncalled for, alongside falsely accusing me of breaching WP:NOTHERE. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 19:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for my actions. The poor formatting threw me off a lot, and I really shouldn't have done what I did. I know I won't be forgiven (everything I do on this site is a mistake), but I wanted to acknowledge my wrongdoing in this scenario. BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have also told me to "go away" in an edit summary, which you had been repeatedly told not to do. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 19:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was wrong, and I will admit that was done out of malice because you kept putting back your message. That doesn't mean I was right, though, and I wish I had stopped myself before going ahead with my disgraceful actions. BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Chain Reaction (game show). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that applying the MOS such as MOS:COMMA is not an exemption to WP:3RR, and you have made 4 reverts at Chain Reaction (game show) with no attempt at discussion or explanation of any kind other than this single edit summary that simply says Knock it off. The formatting was right. That you declared at WP:AIV that you will never stop undoing contributed to this block, as that is not how disputes should be resolved. - Aoidh (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Renamed user 3429187546 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay, looking back, I shouldn't have said nor done what I did. I want to admit my wrongdoing and earnestly apologize for my behavior. It was unacceptable and not in line with Wikipedia's collaborative nature. I deeply regret the confusion and frustration I caused. With that said, I am committed to learning from this experience and changing my demeanor. While I can't guarantee I won't slip up again, I'm dedicated to communicating better, being patient, and treating all contributors with respect. I wholly understand that trust needs to be earned, and I hope you can see my sincerity in seeking a fresh start. Thank you. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I consider this matter resolved with this statement. Good luck. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you retract the statement that you "will never stop undoing"? 331dot (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. BrickMaster02 (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I have no objections if you or any other administrator feels an unblock is appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. https://showbuzzdaily.com/ is still operating. Why remove the viewer table because of you think it’s unnecessary? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that they aren't reporting ratings anymore. And unless it is coming from a reliable source, they are NOT to be added under any circumstance...then again, I'm not the head of the article. BrickMaster02 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, but why did ShowBuzz retire ratings? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's on the Wikipedia article, but here's the link to their post. BrickMaster02 (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty sad. Also, some users are using SpoilerTV for viewership data, but has it become a recent reliable source? Last time we heard of them we thought of them as unreliable, but if they actually become reliable, this might be our last resort for viewership ratings. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not an admin, so I don't know if we can use it. BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The admins may need to talk about this subject. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing years in The Great Christmas Light Fight specials

Your explanation for removing the years of the specials from the table makes no sense. There are cited sources that confirm when the 2023 specials are going to air. Also, every other section of episodes has had a year added to it for clarification, and that year has been added to the table when the season is added. There are now two years that have had the Halloween episodes, so having the year included in the table adds clarification to the reader, and again every special has a cited source to back it up with. Please stop removing the years from the specials, the years add clarficiation and synchronicity to the table. - 17:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC) SanAnMan (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rule on Wikipedia is that when the season/special ACTUALLY air, the years get added as a result. You do NOT add them BEFORE they premiere. That's just how it is. BrickMaster02 (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the policy that states this. SanAnMan (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TVSEASONYEAR BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll admit mea culpa on that aspect then. You should have stated this reason in your first edit summary rather than just reverting without explaining your actions. That's why I sent you a warning about edit warring, which from what I can see, you have had many problems with in the past. You also don't need to constantly use caps when talking with other people, that's considered shouting and is considered very rude. On Wikipedia, editors are supposed to work together towards a solution, not shout at each other. Please try to be more civil. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Your recent editing history at The Great Christmas Light Fight shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SanAnMan (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of Sulphur Springs

Hi, Why did you revert me (without any reason)? Yann (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted because that addition was completely unnecessary. Not to mention that it was a clip from an Israeli dub on an article in English. I've also noticed that you've been doing this with other Disney shows, so I kindly ask you to stop doing this. BrickMaster02 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why unnecessary? It is a valuable addition to the article. Yann (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how. I really don't see a reason on why a clip from an Israeli dub should be on an English article. BrickMaster02 (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This really shows your incompetence. You didn't even watch this extract. Or you would have seen that it is in English (with Hebrew subtitles). These extracts are useful to show what these sitcoms look like to someone who doesn't know. There are therefore valuable to the articles. Yann (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't valuable. You don't see stuff like this on other sitcom articles, and the reasoning behind "showing what these sitcoms look like to someone who doesn't know" is, and I'm sorry to say this, foolish. It's not adding anything new to these articles. And even if the clips are in English, they are still out of place as they have subtitles that are in other languages. You can't call my claim incompetent, if yours falls under that term. BrickMaster02 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Dora CGI series.

Hello. Sorry to interrupt what you are doing, but I just got started on making the Dora CGI 2024 series via draft. I'm not so sure if you are aware of this, but I saw some sneak peeks of the series on the official Dora & Friends YouTube Channel.

Second, the sources. Overall, I've found 4 so far (including a YouTube source). The only thing I had a hard time with is the studios. I just heard that Pipeline Studios (based in Ottawa) are going to produce the series with Nickelodeon Animation Studio for Paramount+, according to some unreliable sources. The only footage I found was this at the end credits of the sneak peeks. VictorRocks (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hi BrickMaster02! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at List of Paramount+ original programming that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Happily888 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of Paramount+ original programming shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Happily888 (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:BrickMaster02 reported by User:Happily888 (Result: ). Thank you. Happily888 (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

America's Most Wanted

My mistake on that tagging. I totally thought TBD meant "To be determined". My bad! Thanks for reverting conman33 (. . .talk) 03:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bossy Bear

An IP user as been pasting very short episode summaries from other websites. Can you please check on this draft for me? It has been getting lots of trouble though IP users. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paramount+ original programming

Hi, I moved some sections of that page, because these programs were all released as proven by the references. What was the matter? Why did you reverted my edits? 82.50.167.55 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did that because the formatting was all wrong. I'm going back in to re-edit them in the more-refined format. BrickMaster02 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 82.50.167.55 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring on Destination Fear (2019 TV series); missing and unhelpful edit summaries; biting newcomers with excessive and unhelpful warnings (like [5] and [6]). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Renamed user 3429187546 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the issues raised against me, particularly with my lack of edit summaries and the excessive use of warnings, resulting in another block. I genuinely apologize for any disruption my actions have caused and I am dedicated to improving my contributions on this site. From now on, I plan to grow from this and add transparent edit summaries, while also being cautious when warning other users. I deeply appreciate the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and kindly request a reconsideration of the block, assuring you of my sincere commitment to change for the better. Thank you. BrickMaster02 (talk) 9:50 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

duplicated below -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's pretty vague. Please concisely and clearly describe what you did and what you will do instead. And you did not address the editwarring at all..

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks,-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, you could've denied the request. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BaldiBasicsFan: Yes. But sometimes it's better to engage and educate, and to hope they can show understanding, than to relentlessly decline unblock requests in which the appellant has not really addressed the concern. The backlog is down to 44 pending unblocks, so I can afford to await a reply before declining. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, thanks for taking this case and helping with the backlog. There are civility and collaboration issues here that are broader than edit warring. I'm also concerned that previous appeals included promises that were broken. I'm not pushing for a specific result, but if an unblock is ultimately considered, a different approach than previous unblocks might be warranted. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Quinlan: Thanks. Yes, the ball is now on @BrickMaster02:'s side of the court. It disturbs me when I see vague assurances that do not say how the user will "grow from this." Phrases like, "any disruption my actions have caused," imply they don't really see the problem that led to the disruption they caused, or even that they were disruptive. . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Care to explain the edit summary "decline duplicate"? Is that not going to be reviewed? BrickMaster02 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You created a duplicate unblock request instead of fixing the first one, so I declined the first one. Only one unblock request should be open a a time. While I'm here, I don't see the second as an improvement, but having declined one, I cannot address the second. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but once I decline an unblock request, I leave subsequent requests to a fresh reviewer. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Renamed user 3429187546 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Looking back, I should not have done what I did. I fully acknowledge the causes behind my block, those being edit disputes, ill advised and lack of editing summaries and excessive use of warnings toward newcomers, and I want you to understand that I sincerely regret performing all of them. My commitment is by any means to avoid such behavior in the future and engage myself in a productive collaboration on Wikipedia. Deepfriedokra and other editors have given their opinions on discussions and consensus-building particularly. I am dedicated to taking a step back and discussing any disputes on relevant talk pages in the future, so I can prevent this from happening again. Some concerns raised about civility and collaboration are justifiable, and I am going to sort these problems out moving forward. I cannot promise that this won't happen again, but I am devoted to being cooperative and treating others with dignity. I guarantee you that this request is a vast development from the last two appeals, and I am ready to settle this issue affirmatively. BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Looking back, I should not have done what I did. I fully acknowledge the causes behind my block, those being edit disputes, ill advised and lack of editing summaries and excessive use of warnings toward newcomers, and I want you to understand that I sincerely regret performing all of them. My commitment is by any means to avoid such behavior in the future and engage myself in a productive collaboration on Wikipedia. Deepfriedokra and other editors have given their opinions on discussions and consensus-building particularly. I am dedicated to taking a step back and discussing any disputes on relevant talk pages in the future, so I can prevent this from happening again. Some concerns raised about civility and collaboration are justifiable, and I am going to sort these problems out moving forward. I cannot promise that this won't happen again, but I am devoted to being cooperative and treating others with dignity. I guarantee you that this request is a vast development from the last two appeals, and I am ready to settle this issue affirmatively. [[User:BrickMaster02|BrickMaster02]] ([[User talk:BrickMaster02#top|talk]]) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Looking back, I should not have done what I did. I fully acknowledge the causes behind my block, those being edit disputes, ill advised and lack of editing summaries and excessive use of warnings toward newcomers, and I want you to understand that I sincerely regret performing all of them. My commitment is by any means to avoid such behavior in the future and engage myself in a productive collaboration on Wikipedia. Deepfriedokra and other editors have given their opinions on discussions and consensus-building particularly. I am dedicated to taking a step back and discussing any disputes on relevant talk pages in the future, so I can prevent this from happening again. Some concerns raised about civility and collaboration are justifiable, and I am going to sort these problems out moving forward. I cannot promise that this won't happen again, but I am devoted to being cooperative and treating others with dignity. I guarantee you that this request is a vast development from the last two appeals, and I am ready to settle this issue affirmatively. [[User:BrickMaster02|BrickMaster02]] ([[User talk:BrickMaster02#top|talk]]) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Looking back, I should not have done what I did. I fully acknowledge the causes behind my block, those being edit disputes, ill advised and lack of editing summaries and excessive use of warnings toward newcomers, and I want you to understand that I sincerely regret performing all of them. My commitment is by any means to avoid such behavior in the future and engage myself in a productive collaboration on Wikipedia. Deepfriedokra and other editors have given their opinions on discussions and consensus-building particularly. I am dedicated to taking a step back and discussing any disputes on relevant talk pages in the future, so I can prevent this from happening again. Some concerns raised about civility and collaboration are justifiable, and I am going to sort these problems out moving forward. I cannot promise that this won't happen again, but I am devoted to being cooperative and treating others with dignity. I guarantee you that this request is a vast development from the last two appeals, and I am ready to settle this issue affirmatively. [[User:BrickMaster02|BrickMaster02]] ([[User talk:BrickMaster02#top|talk]]) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@HJ Mitchell: Can you possibly take a look at this? BrickMaster02 (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm about to leave the house so I don't have time for a proper review except of course to say we've had similar conversations at AIV in the past. Your latest unblock request looks reasonable to me and if it was my block I'd likely accept it but I wouldn't reverse another admin's block without at least having a conversation with them, which might take more than the ~12 hours the block has left. I should be back online in a few hours so I'll take a more detailed look then if the request is still up. Courtesy ping for Daniel Quinlan. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Good luck with that. I've tried pinging him to no avail. Daniel Quinlan BrickMaster02 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You mean the ping that you removed several hours after making it? That's an interesting comment to make in the midst of an appeal. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It was my fault anyway. I wanted to get the block lifted, but I already know that it is not going to happen, and will most likely result in an extended ban. I again apologize for it, and feel like I have made too much damage on this site...and I have. BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You're a dedicated contributor who wants to do the best thing for the encyclopaedia. That's not in doubt. The issue I have is that not every poor or misguided edit, not even every objectively "bad" edit, is vandalism and sometimes it's a confused newbie who doesn't understand why we write articles the way we do or why we include some things but not others. It's time-consuming but sometimes you have to help them understand. Reverting without edit summaries doesn't help anyone. You need to convince us that that will change going forward, and not just because you want to be unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I promise it will. Again, I cannot guarantee that it won't happen again, but I will try my absolute best to take a step back if what I'm about to do is unethical. BrickMaster02 (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @HJ Mitchell: I have some concerns which I stated above, but if you decide that an unblock is appropriate, I have no objections. Perhaps a self-imposed revert restriction such as 1RR as part of the conditions for the unblock would improve the odds of a better long-term outcome if you think that's a good idea and if BrickMaster02 is willing to agree to that. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Anything to get me unbanned, I'll take what I can get. What are your thoughts, HJ Mitchell? BrickMaster02 (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Unfortunately, there does seem to be a considerable backlog of unblock requests right now.
  
  If you agree to be subject to an indefinite one-revert rule restriction with an additional requirement to explain the reason for all reversions in your edit summary or the article or editor's talk page immediately after reverting. After 1 year, you may appeal the restriction. This would mean that you may not make more than one revert on any page per 24 hours and that all reversions would have to be explained, subject to the usual exemptions such as blatant vandalism documented here. Failure to abide by this restriction would be enforced with blocks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I am ready to accept this agreement and understand that I will be blocked if I don't comply. BrickMaster02 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]