User talk:BrickMaster02

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

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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

On September 17, 2021 Vidpro23 has removed most content on the

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: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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

	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]

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]

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]

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]

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. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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]

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

]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

You should know what

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

Can you please go to the "

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]

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]

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]

Why revert my latest edit? The article for Tooned Out is still available on the Warner Bros. wiki. 🤷🏻‍♂️ DecaTilde 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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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

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

BrickMaster02 (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]

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]

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

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

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]

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

. . .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

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

]