User talk:YoungForever/Archive 1

BoogerD: I have issued an Edit Warring Warning on the editor's Talk page. If the editor continue to edit warring I advise you or Drovethrughosts to report the editor on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. — Lbtocth^talk 21:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The editor proceeded to post the same message on my talk page though, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't revert three times within the 24 hour period. – BoogerD (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

And now they've reverted again. I won't take their bait. Not going to be drawn into an edit war especially over a non-issue. I sincerely hope another editor intervenes. – BoogerD (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Camera type doesn't even need to be listed for dramas, which is what Homecoming looks to be. All dramas are single-camera. The single-camera and multi-camera distinction really only exists in sitcoms, as explained by IJBall and elaborated on by Gonnym here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Amaury, I seen popular drama TV series frequently visit by veteran editors list the camera type. However, since it on the Infobox television, I think it is optional. Of course, you don't remove just because you want to which seems to be what the editor is doing. The editor was reverted by 3 different editors. — Lbtocth^talk 22:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed you've added a number of comments to section headings, like you did here. Could you please, in the future, ensure the comment is on the line after the heading, as per the

Joeyconnick, I was not aware I was doing it wrong. Thank you for letting me know. — Lbtocth^talk 22:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries... it's a subtle thing and I'm sure in most cases it doesn't create a big problem, but I just figured we should be guideline-compliant. 🙂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Joeyconnick, I put the comment in because some editors repeatedly put the year before it even aired in 2019. — Lbtocth^talk 22:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know why you're adding the comments and I think it's a useful reminder. We just have to ensure they are added on the next line down to avoid the potential problems that MOS:HEAD talks about. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi YoungForever. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until {{{expiry}}}. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing
  Twinkle
  .
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of
  good faith edits
  .
• Rollback should never be used to
  edit war
  .
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Ixfd64 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: When does it expire? I am not seeing a date. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Your rollback rights do not expire. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Ok. I was confused when you said, "I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until {{{expiry}}}." — YoungForever^(talk) 18:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I was using the "notify" link on the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback page, which automatically created this message. Sorry for the confusion — we should probably get it changed. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: No worries. Thank you for clearing up the confusion. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello YoungForever,

First off, wow, getting used to the new name. Might take a while. Haha. I'm messaging you though to take a look at a film article I was editing today: My Spy. Currently in a dispute with another editor over content in the article. I had included writing in the article regarding various producers on the film sourced to Deadline and Hollywood Reporter articles. However, the other editor removed the content as they said the information was "irrelevant". When I objected and pointed out that that was a more opinion-based reasoning rather than anything based in WP or MOS policy they responded by saying, "Relevant according to you. I conceded on some aspects of your edit but Wikipedia is a collaboration. I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you. Additionally, i express the film’s titled because, before that date it was unknown. What is your reason for not noting it?" I'm trying to proceed with caution here and avoid an edit war. Perhaps, you'll take a look at the article. Get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Production. — YoungForever^(talk)

00:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

First off, that is the most bizarre reason to have to change your username. Sorry you had to deal with that. Also, Would you mind making the edit? The other editor specifically said they would only acquiesce with the intervention of another and, also, I'm concerned over engaging in an edit war. – BoogerD (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. But, I will not revert again if I get reverted by the same editor. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Amaury,IJBall, & Geraldo Perez, any thoughts about including various producers with reliable sources on film articles? — YoungForever^(talk) 00:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Only those with a "producer" or "produced by" credit should be listed. Co-producers are not producers. Same with other credits like executive producers. Co-executive producers are not executive producers. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear: this was regarding the inclusion of such information in the production section of the body of the article. I was already aware that Infobox film only lists those credited specifically as a producer. I believe you were referring to Infobox film, no? – BoogerD (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: BoogerD was adding executive producers under the Production section of the article. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@

consensus. — YoungForever^(talk)

23:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, YoungForever! I value all of the generous help you offer more than you know. Honestly, I think I am at a turning point with my editing on Wikipedia though. I've gotten into too many debates in the last two months and I no longer get the same enjoyment out of editing. Due to various circumstances of my life, I logged in over 20,000 edits in 2018 and devoted a lot of time to the site. I think I'm simply at a point where I have to ask if continuing to edit is in the best interest of my wellbeing. The only fear I have is that, should I step away, all of the work I've done here will be for naught. I would hate to see all of the articles I've poured so much time and energy into begin to decline in quality. I don't know. In the last few weeks, I have had to make so many concessions with myself about stuff on here. There's been so many things that I might have debated or argued over in the past that I'm just forced to let go. I don't have the mental energy or time to devote an entire day on here to one topic (often a tiny one at that). Just now, I decided to just move on and let go over some recent edits I disagreed with at Manifest. Removed the article from my watchlist. I suppose I just can't care so much about every article I have listed on my user page. Sorry to burden you with all of these rambling thoughts. I suppose I just think you'll understand where I'm coming from given all of the great work you've done and continue to do at a lot of the same articles. Hoping you're having a good year thus far, BoogerD (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@BoogerD: No problem. I am sorry to hear that you might quit editing on Wikipedia. If you must take a short break from editing for the sake of your wellbeing, then you should as I know mental health is very important. But, I hope you don't quit for good.

If you actually looked at the style guide dots are used in people's names. The only time they aren't is in an initialism. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Not on

MOS:TV. — YoungForever^(talk)

23:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

MOS:INITIALS states unless it's the preferred style or majority of reliable sources use it, not when the on-screen effect based font styling of a series chooses the ignore the use of periods. If you had a copy of the printed script that which would not use on-screen font styling for effect and had the periods removed then the unless exceptions would be valid. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

MOS:INITIALS says it is required to use periods. Enough with making up your own rules/guidelines. — YoungForever^(talk)

04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, congrats on getting Roleback right. Could you please help revert the edits to List of ancient Greek philosophers made by 25callagard thanks A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 17:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane, I just checked the them and they are definitely vandalism.  Done — YoungForever^(talk) 17:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Awesome thank you A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 17:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A 10 fireplane If the articles keeps getting vandalized, I recommend you getting the article page protected. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 17:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello YoungForever. I mistakenly deprecated your review on the article Led Zeppelin when I should have simply undid the edit. I hope I didn't cause you alarm. My apologies! Shuipzv3 (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Shuipzv3: I thought I rejected the ip address pending changes, I must have pressed the accept button by mistake. — YoungForever^(talk) 08:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi YoungForever,

Would you mind taking a look at this most recent edit ([1]) over at the article for Returning the Favor? I believe we had discussed the issue of sourcing for episode tables and whether the series itself provided sourcing for the episode table. I know on the numerous, numerous television series articles that we edit that it is common practice to remove sourcing (from websites like The Futon Critic for instance) after an episode or season has aired. I believe in the past that you and another editor had suggested that completely removing the information was disruptive and that if anything was to be done adding a tag might be appropriate (though I'm not sure that is true given the fact that literally every article I've contributed to on here does not source episodes once they've aired). Please get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you, I'd love to resolve this issue promptly. – BoogerD (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@BoogerD: Yes, that would be considered to be disruptive editing. However, I will have to politely decline to involve myself in reverting the veteran editor because he is an administrator. I do recommend invite him for a discussion on the Talk page of Returning the Favor. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I completely understand your decision not to get involved. I too find that when others reach out to me give me thoughts on a questionable edit that I have to look at it within the context it was made and decide if intervening is in my best interest. I've reached out to Alex 21 and Esuka to see what they think as well. Funny thing is in this specific case: the other editor isn't really arguing that sourcing of the episodes is required. Rather, they are saying that their is not enough enough coverage of the episodes themselves (independent of the show I presume) and so that makes them somehow non-notable and their presence in the article then given an undue weight. I don't know...I've never seen another editor use this sort of rationale for deleting an episode table from a television series article. I'm in no rush to resolve this issue tonight though. Gotta keep my nerves in check and take on any undue stress from something like a Wikipedia dispute. However, I guess I'll make a more concerted effort to deal with it tomorrow. – BoogerD (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue is solved now. Esuka (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Esuka: I just checked and I believe the sources should be sufficient enough as they are Returning the Favor's official Facebook Watch page details of respectively seasons. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Esuka and I were discussing this on his talk page. Sourcing in the episode table does not seem necessary. YoungForever, you are someone who is frequent and consistent with your updating of articles following a new episode or season's premiere. And so I know you are one of many who follows the general policy of removing sourcing (like The Futon Critic) following a premiere. I just don't see why a different standard applies to this article and not to basically all others. I don't know...at some point in the future perhaps they will be removed. – BoogerD (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@BoogerD: I seen many TV series articles keep the column reliable source like Famous in Love in which I don't have a problem with. The ones in which are removed are rows of a reliable source like Counterpart (TV series) in which I don't have a problem with either. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I will say that, however, general consensus has been to remove the sources following an episodes premiere. I believe you do it all the time with articles such as the various current CBS sitcoms. And you could take a look at any episode table for current popular or heavily edited television series articles like

Orange is the New Black for instance. No sourcing. Past discussions into this have seemed to suggest that the shows themselves provide sourcing for the articles. Hmmm...I guess I just like things to stay fairly consistent over a given topic (like television series articles) and not for one show/series to be held to some different standard. BTW, Netoholic has intervened and commented on the article's talk page. Just an FYI. – BoogerD (talk

) 02:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@BoogerD: I want to point out that I do not remove column reliable source like Famous in Love. I only remove row ones like Counterpart (TV series). — YoungForever^(talk) 02:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. If you don't mind me asking though...what's the difference? Why remove one and not the other? – BoogerD (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@BoogerD: The column ones refer to the all the episode titles and the row ones refer only to the row of the episode. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I mean why remove one type and not the other type especially in situations where the ones citing individual episodes are the only source in the table? Numerous, numerous television series articles would suggest that sourcing tables for already aired shows is unnecessary and this seems supported when sources, like the episode ones, are consistently removed. Not trying to "wade out into the weeds" here but just trying to clarify what has been my, and I would think many editor's, experience editing television articles. – BoogerD (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the discussion btw. I always find your input/thoughts invaluable. You are certainly an asset on Wikipedia especially when it comes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. – BoogerD (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There is some discrepancy regarding the production order and airdate of the season's episode "The Trial of Jim Gordon". Can you please fix it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I don't know what you are referring to as I don't see anything wrong as of the latest edit. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it's publicised as the season's 12th episode and last to be produced, but it is airing as the ninth episode. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: As far as I know, episodes may not go in the order of production order. I seen this on several TV series. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

What is wrong with the edits I am making? Can you kindly tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarksville (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Clarksville: You cannot change order of credits just because you want to, we go by the cast order on the on-screen credits. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't have any idea that shows below millions are not rounded. If you didn't like the Aussie show example then how about this US cable one: Corporate (TV series). Fix the article now or I'll report this as vandalism. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You are the one who is disruptive editing when there is no hard rule/guideline on that at all. It's not vandalism. I am not obligated to fulfill your demands. Enough with

WP:OWN. — YoungForever^(talk)

00:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It was originally in 2 decimal places before you wanted to change it. You can't change it without reaching consensus. You have the attitude of "

MOS:TV that says it is required to round numbers in thousands instead of decimal points. — YoungForever^(talk)

22:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not know want to go through an edit war. This is the link I got her character's name from. https://instagram.com/officiallaurendonzis/ Brokence (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:RS. If it is verified with a check mark badge next the the account name, then if would be a reliable source. — YoungForever^(talk)

22:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Despite that, I do just want to say that it is her since the account has been tagged in some of Siena Agudong and Melissa Joan Hart's posts, who both have verified accounts. But I guess that doesn't stop it from being an "unreliable" source. Brokence (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:PRIMARY. — YoungForever^(talk)

23:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

When I made that comment, I wasn't trying to convince you to let me edit the page again. I was just letting you know that the account has been tagged in the posts of verified accounts. That was all. I wasn't even expecting a response. Brokence (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I've seen you around; mostly editing quite a bit of the same TV shows I'm editing. Just wondering if you're actually watching The Perfectionists or just editing it?? TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: I do watch Pretty Little Liars: The Perfectionists. Why do you ask? — YoungForever^(talk) 01:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Well this helps me out and hopefully it'll help you out if you're TV schedule is as full as mine. But the new episodes go up on Freeform's website for free shortly after the start of the episode (the link). There are still commercials but they're shorter than the traditionally are on TV. For example the episode was uploaded at 7:02 my time (two minutes after it started airing on Freeform). I started watching about 7:05 and finished the episode (with commercials) at 7:51 (ten minutes before it would've ended on Freeform). It also allows you to skip around so I was watching it on my TV but used by laptop to skip around and grab information like production code, editor, guest starring credits, etc. Sorry if I got a little long-winded but like I said hopefully it'll help.

As a side note I'll be busy on Wednesdays for the foreseeable so if no one beats me too it my episode articles/summaries will be delayed from what they have been. Thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: I wasn't not aware of that at all. Thanks for letting me know. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Anytime, just noticed you're doing quite a bit to help maintain the article and thought it might help. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: That actually saves a lot of time. I hate long commercials. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I know, me too they're so annoying I just wish they'd go away sometimes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)