CloudKade11

Welcome...for starters DO NOT create multiple sections of the same name please. I check every section and I don't need any clones. Those who ignore this I will not even bother. Thanks.

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Markko Rivera, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Which edit is this about?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CloudKade11 (talk • contribs)

All of these. Mike Allen 05:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

American Idol

Hey CloudKade11, I also just added Lopez and Tyler to the bottom template. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Naomi Clark sources

Hi. The source you replaced was being used in more than just one part of the article. By removing it, you left something else in the article unverified. I understand that your edit was made with good intentions, but please be sure to check for this sort of thing before you replace sources. If you see "ref name," that means that the source is used in multiple places. I've gone ahead and fixed things. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. Really helps :) CloudKade11 (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Naomi Clark

Nowhere in the paragraph does it say that she "is" the main character. It's important information to say that Grimes has the lead role but as the show has progressed McCord has been referred to as the lead, but not actually the lead. Don't just remove information, if you have a problem bring it up for discussion then the Wikipedia community can decide. Jayy008 (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's chat

Hi, I think we're getting off on the wrong foot and I want to clear the air. First of all, I'm appreciative of your interest in soap-related articles and the time you're willing to put in to fix and update them. There are more "fans" than serious editors here, and we definitely need more thoughtful article improvements and less updates of who kissed who today.

That said, I can see you are a new editor, and I think we just may be bumping heads a little because I've been around for awhile and think I know everything (LOL) and you aren't yet fully familiar with all the WP guidelines and policy. You may first want to familiarize yourself with the guidelines collected at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Style guidelines, which attempt to apply general WP policy to this specific genre of articles.

I would ask that in the future when one of your edits is challenged, that you consider the opposing argument a little better, and perhaps even engage in a discussion, before you blindly revert. So far we have "clashed" on two relatively unimportant infobox situations (senior cast members/character images) but in both cases you seemed to aggressively edit and revert without all the facts. I am concerned that in the future this will happen in a more serious situation, disrupting an article or even resulting in a user block. A lot of things are not specifically spelled out in policy and the only way to decide what's right for a particular article is by calm and constructive discussion among editors. We're all here to do the same thing, I'm hoping we can work better together in the future. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 16:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Devil

I've added a source to the plot which you ignored and the cast list is not fine. It's redundant and takes up a lot of room for no reason than to repeat things that are already in different parts of the article. Please, do not revert the changes again. This is a warning. Cigammagicwizard (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You said the following: "You took off all the sources in the cast section because they were all the same. If you actually took the time to go through them, you would see that not all are the same."

I did not do such a thing. I took the sources in the casting list and posted them in the "Casting" section of the article. It's apparent you're a newbie to the site and I have been here a LOT longer than you. Shocktillyoudrop is associated with CraveOnline, one of the most reliable sources online. You can't just focus on one website. Furthermore, STYD is not the only site that confirmed the whole business retreat thing. If you took the time to look at the the main source, it came from Heat Vision. Please, take the time to do that next time. Cigammagicwizard (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't mind a compromise. Cigammagicwizard (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

90210 - Season 3

Hello, please don't inflate ratings as you did in the 90210 season 3 page. It had 2.05m viewers for the first half of the episode, then it fell, a lot. The average number between both half hours is used on Wikipedia. Jayy008 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me what you didn't understand about the post above? Jayy008 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't respond to rude and idiotic comments. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The first comment wasn't rude, at all. I was only a little more aggressive in the second one because you ignored me and made the edit again anyway. Jayy008 (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to tell me about my opinions? Again, RUDE. CloudKade11 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Refering to a valid comment as rude and idiotic is rude. Inflating ratings is vandalism, I was trying to help by warning you as such, some users don't comment, they go straight into vandalism warnings. I can see it was mis-guided to try and be helpful. Jayy008 (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

PS, this has nothing to do with personal opinion. Inflating ratings of TV shows or sales of music will not increase the real ratings/sales, just lead Wikipedia's readers into false information. I, for one, like to come to Wikipedia and read correct information. Jayy008 (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You think thats what this is all about? Wow, your in way over your head here. LOL CloudKade11 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It began with this, yes. Obsessed fans who inflate, if annoying, and takes so long so correct, I just don't understand why you won't be civil and avoid it. I'm only making this effort because, we edit a lot of the same pages, we're bound to have a disagreement in the future. Jayy008 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

theFutonCritic is credible

How the hell is theFutonCritic.com not a credible source? Every single article on the site is a press release from either the network or production company. Not to mention, there are hundred of TV related articles on Wikipedia that use theFutonCritic.com as sources and the authenticity is never challenged.

Just because you say it isn't credible, doesn't make it so. Wattlebird (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Labeling a website as uncredible because you haven't heard of it is nonsense. Besides, using that as the reason for reverting edits on Wikipedia isn't a valid edit reason and you'll find your edits reverted. FYI. Wattlebird (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you had half a brain, you would've realised those edits you just reverted don't cite theFutonCritic as a source and instead use the official CBS press site. Are you saying that site isn't credible either? Wattlebird (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Who are to judge whether an official CBS site is good enough to use a source? Pull your head out your ass. Wattlebird (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

October, 2010

First of all, I was told by an admin to add that message to your page. It wasn't a warning, it was just informing you of the message on the page, it didn't need to be deleted, it wasn't negative in anyway. It was in GOODFAITH to show you it wasn't behind your back and that you can add your side of the story.

Everything you said on there, though, is what you do. First with your ratings inflation, which I tried to talk to you about in a nice way, but you made the edits again then being using badfaith when my second comment was rude? As long as the first comment was nice, so to speak, I've done my job in assuming Wikipedia:GOODFAITH. The second comment doesn't need to be, if the previous one was unanswered.

As for the "doesn't belong here," that's absolutely fine, when the information is moved, not deleted. Since you the editor had a problem with the location of the information, it becomes your job to move it. Deleting something based on personal opinion is disruptive. If you don't like where it is and are really against moving it, ask another user politely to do, I'm sure they'd abblige, as I know I would.

But all what you said on that page was nothing to do with the page, that page you was reported on was for rudeness, not editing. You should contest why you think your comments weren't rude, not why your edits were correct.

The rudeness, in my definition, is the capital letters. Using them implies shouting or making the assumption the other person is stupid. Rudeness aside, the other comments you made can be deemed as bullying. Telling somebody "you need help" or "act like a normal human being for once." Then that aside, the racism (can be deemed as) to my country.

Also, if you're willing to be civil, I will teach you about ownership issues. You have no right to tell me or any other user what to do or telling them to seek your permission. What happens here, which I myself should have done the first time you edited it. Was bring it up for discussion, but, I didn't think you'd go for that. My reasoning for adding the repeat ratings were fine, although, some users may not agree in having them. As it stands, there are two users in favour of the repeat ratings and one user who doesn't want it. So for now, it stays, until either the vote goes the other way or it becomes tied. Then I will remove it until a final decision is reached.

What I don't understand is, you're asking me to be mature and discuss with you, but I asked the same with in a previous discussion which you deleted, to do the same, to which you replied "I'm done" and some other stuff I won't repeat. Please don't try to deny you've deleted stuff from here, because it's all in the history of your talk page which you can't change. And on my page you said, don't change your comment to make you look bad. I can't do that, not that I ever would, as your capitals did that for you, making it agressive. It will appear in my history is I altered it and I'd be punished.

I am willing to start fresh (second time, last time), as we edit many of the same pages. All I'm asking is that you reply, nicely. Don't inflate. Don't remove reliably sourced information without a valid reason "I don't care about repeat ratings," isn't a valid reason, others might? Think of that? All it needs is a discussion, that's what I live by here. Although, sometimes it doesn't work, I will explain that if you want me to, but it's long. please read all of this and please read Wikipedia:GOODFAITH. Jayy008 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment

PS, I know that's long winded, but that's my final plea. As nice as can possibly be at this stange. Jayy008 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sara Sidle Status

Hi!

I have a problem. I'm editing CSI Pages in wikipedia for 3 or 4 years. But during this week, the user Wattlebird, initiates a edit war. He think that Sara Sidle is a recurring cast character in season 11 because CBS Press Releases list her as "Recurring cast". But the show list her now as "Starring". All the actors who appears in the opening credits are listed as "Starring" they are the main cast, and Jorja Fox appears in the opening credits in this season, if she was a recurring character, the series would listed her as "Special Guest Star" the same as Season 9 and 10. CBS Press Releases is not a good evidence, because there are a lot of mistakes every day in their articles. In the episode 10x10 "Better off dead" CBS Press Releases listed Jorja fox as a main cast character. But she was listed in the series as "special guest star" the same as the previous episodes, in Season 11 episode 4, CBS Press Releases listed Jorja Fox as "Recurring character", but she didn't appears in the episode, and in the next episode, she didn't listed in the CBS Press but she appears in the show. Always as a "Main Cast Character" in the opening series of season 11. But Wattlebird continues revert the article... Please, can you help me? Thanks you! DM-AVENGER (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I found the evidence that Jorja Fox is a main cast member in season eleven. CBS Press Releases finally listed her in the main cast. Jorja Fox is listed as a Main cast member in CBS Press Releases since Episode 9 of Season 11. http://jorjafox.net/blog/jorja-credited-as-series-regular-for-wild-life. DM-AVENGER (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Gossip Girl

It's your opinion. Repeats of Gossip Girl have been seen by less viewers. The statements there indicates it's the lowest repeat ever broadcast. Can you think of another way to say it? Jayy008 (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No it does not. I put "a low of" and removed "all-time low". There's a difference. "a low of" just means it's one of the lowest watched episodes of Gossip Girl, not the lowest itself. It's a fact, and not in any way my opinion. By the way, can you please refrain from making multiple "Gossip Girl" sections on my talk page? Thanks. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you've certainly changed your attitude. I'm very happy to see this improvement. However, things like this I'd rather not discuss. I will simply ask an admin if I'm right. As it stands, anything like that is an opinion. You say it's "a low," but someone else may say it's high. The only fact is the viewing figure, wether it's considered high or low is an opinion. Like 2m viewers is good for The CW, but bad for other networks. However, some may say that just an opinion and 2m is crap. You was right to revert, until matters like this are resolved, the original version (the one you added) stays. I will let you know what the admin says. PS. The one above was a sub-section, not a section. This was a new issue. Jayy008 (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that's a fact is what's in the source. Anything extra added by the user is their opinion. See Wikipedia:Fancruft. Jayy008 (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, a repeat is never expected to be high. Jayy008 (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I find "I'm very happy to see this improvement." really offensive. You make it seem as if I have a disorder that needs improving. Which is very rude if you ask me. And in the past, you've made at least 2 other Gossip Girl and 90210 sections, and it just clutters my talk page. I've had to delete those sections in the past. All I ask is to keep your conversation in 1 section. I read all sections whenever I receive new messages, unless a new section has been created. CloudKade11 (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If those are your preferences, then I'm happy to oblige. What I'd suggest is having information at the top of your page, then everyone can know exactly how you'd like things on your talk page. And, I'm sorry you find it rude, but I am happy. If I tried talking to you before I'd get "Try acting like a normal human being for one," and that's more of a rude statement. Anyway, that Gossip Girl repeat wasn't one of the lowest, it's one of the highest. Unless the source says it "a low" we should stick to the facts, the only fact is the rating, the website doesn't have an opinion on it. Jayy008 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop thinking you can tell me what to do. I will not leave anything alone. Jayy008 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, that's why I put being bold. If you care to read up on Wikipedia:BeBold then you'll understand. My edit was based on what I thought, so I was bold and changed it. But it was challenged by you, so it didn't work out. Now it's either discuss it, or leave it. But since it's challenged, leaving it is the best option in this case. Jayy008 (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

With no rudeness intended, you really need to calm down. Your making it too much of a big deal. I don't know, I'm starting to get the feeling you create issues on purpose for fun. And I'm simply asking to leave it alone, because your edits in this case are disruptive. How would it make sense if you leave nothing but the names? People won't know what their doing in the show. If we do decide to go with your opinion, then we have to remove all the actors names from all the sections. So under the "Regulars" section, we'd have nothing but Annie Wilson, Naomi Clark etc. Just a thought, but why don't know you stop your disruptive edits and focus more on the Gossip Girl articles? They need a lot of work. CloudKade11 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No CladeKade, don't tell me what to do. I can edit whatever pages I want. I'm not even saying you're wrong, that's why I didn't revert your edit. That's the whole point of Wikipedia:BeBold, I knew it was controversial, I tried something new and it was challenged, so then it ends. And no, it has nothing to do with any other section because nobody else plays themselves. You need to just learn you can't tell people what to do, you have no right to say "leave it alone," because nobody needs to listen. Jayy008 (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your obviously still not mature enough for a simple conversation, so I'm done here. CloudKade11 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I added a new ratings source for the January 31 episode "Damien Darko", just so there's no dispute over the ratings of the episode. At 1.50 millions of viewers, it is still the lowest rated episode of Gossip Girl yet. So there's no need to go and revert if that's what you were trying to prove. Newer and updated sources are always preferred. And also, the ratings chart on TV by the Numbers divides the episode by each half hour. So you add both the numbers together from each half hour and divide them by two, and you'd still come up with the same rating no matter if it's the initial first reported ratings or if it's the final ratings that are reported later. Ryanlively (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

One Life to Live

Alright dude lets get something that you made a mistake on, on the OLTL comings and goings section you have Tom Degnan returning as Joey Buchanan, but that is wrong, it's supposed to be debuting in the role so why is it saying he is returning? it doesn't make any sense? notice that this isn't the character page it never was, it was the cast page so the cast is, I read you're argument and yeah so don't try that excuse on me. it's supposed to say that he is debuting, not returning so therefore change it debuting. YoungAndWise (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh no? You change it, and you'll be reported. It's been discussed, and the whole thing is done. So your a little to late to challenge it. And no, because Joey Buchanan is RETURNING, not debuting. If you ever even watched the show, you would know this. The CORRECT format goes by the character not actor. So therefore, it stays at "returning". I will not discuss this any longer. Your too late, and nothing can be done about it now. Remember! If you start an edit war, you will be reported. I reported 1 user back in September for not listening nor following the correct guidelines, and as of 9/16 they remain blocked from any edits on Wikipedia. Don't be next. Thanks. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cloud don't threaten me the CORRECT format is actor not character, when Chris Stack took over the role of Michael McBain he said he was debuting, not returning so therefore you have been mistaken and I would suggest you change it before I will, and I will have you blocked permanently, notice the cast is first and characters are last, and Wikipedia also has a character page, so I don't know who the hell you think you are but I'm here now and things go my way on here, do you understand me? so change it or you're editing days on here are over for good. Trust me dude, don't fuck with me cuz you don't want the outcome, I always come out on top always, so my suggestion to you is, either change it or suffer the consequence, and you're whole discussion turned out to be you threaten everybody, you're threats don't scare me but you don't know who you're messing with, the actor is Tom Degnan and has he ever played Joey before? No, so therefore he is debuting so change it or I will and you're days of editing will be over FOREVER. Do I make myself clear? Good. YoungAndWise (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This is my last response to your immature self. I will not speak to users who are rude, immature and arrogant. During the time of Michael McBain's recast, the format was wrong. You can read it yourself in the Soap Opera Wikipedia page. You have been reported by the way. Please, try to understand here that you have to read the guidelines on Wikipedia. You don't get to choose the format! Wikipedia has it's own for the Soap Opera articles, and you can read it yourself that your wrong. If you reply with without any profanity or rudeness, I MIGHT consider having a mature discussion about this, again. By the way in no way do you make yourself clear. I could hardly understand any of what you wrote. By the way there is no need to even bother changing it. Joey returns Wednesday, and it will be taken off, and your little tirade will just turn up to be completely and utterly pointless in the end. CloudKade11 (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I've been reported for what? I didn't do anything all I did was tell you how things went, and you're right, it will be all over on Wednesday, but show me where this new format is, cuz I don't believe it? I think it's wrong myself, I mean the Wikipedia has a character page, last time I checked the cast and character page is about the actors, not the characters, so why have two character pages? doesn't make any sense, oh and since I'm a newbie, I can't edit the cast and character section yet. hehehe. YoungAndWise (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've posted on the discussion board about you're so called format of Comings and Goings, lets see what other people has to say about it, since you never gave me a reply back, I can tell you're little format is confusing, people would look at it and think that Tom Degnan is returning, and I've asked you for proof but so far you haven't given any so my bet is is that, you're just saying that cuz it's your way or the highway, and I saw how you were rude to Jay and to the little comments in the history section, and just so you know if people agree with my way, than I will be changing the Tom Degnan and making it the right away again from now on, I wanna see this Soap Opera thing you claim. YoungAndWise (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would you post a discussion about changing Tom Degnan's status? I'll be taking his name off the template anyways in a few hours and adding him to the cast section. Just because it's the cast page, it doesn't mean it can be treated for other purposes either. You have to check the Wikipedia Soap Opera Guidelines page, and then you'll understand. And you using profanity such as "fuck" will get you nowhere. I've been on Wikipedia for 10 months, and if a much experienced user read what you posted, your account would be deleted in a heart beat. So just be careful. I'm going to be nice, and not do anything about it. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

User:YoungAndWise

I just blocked this account as a sock of banned User:Onelifefreak2007. If you run into anyone else with his editing pattern (OLTL obsession, incivility, unable to understand where to place periods in massive run-on sentences) let me or another administrator know. AniMate 23:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the info. I knew this user was trouble once the profanity suddenly kicked into our discussions. And I will do next time. Again, thanks for the heads up. CloudKade11 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

He's a jerk. Let me know if he bothers you again. AniMate 00:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club: Miami

To start out, why do you keep removing the reunion part for the Duration of Cast? How many times do I have to put out that they're both episodes of the season. Yes, they are reunion specials, but there still in the episode guide and part of the production code. I also put a reference on to it. You didn't even care to look at, but you just undo what I did?

"The other articles are incorrect." No, there's a reason why the reunion is part of the Duration of the Cast for Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, and Season 4. It's part of the show. To be honest, you're having an edit war with me, not the other way around. It's just crazy how you have to alter the truth. Some people want to know if the girls were kicked off the reunion?

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Bad Girls Club (season 5). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [[User:CloudKade11|CloudKade11] (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand I was vandalizing it at first by adding some useless information, and I did refrain from adding why they were removed, voluntarily left, or replaced on of the original girls. If I was vandalizing really badly, my opinion would be put all over the page. "Oh, so and so, got their ass kicked." No I wouldn't put that, or like that one account put, "Christina white trashy hoe." No I don't do that. I don't know what vandalizing is to you, but it's not vandalizing to me. Obviously it's in other articles that were around before this one. Season 1 has been around for years. I'm definite the Reunion was part of it then, and it still is now.

If it was so much of a problem, why don't you edit the reunion out of the other articles listed above? Please don't threaten to report me. If you're going to report me, report me. Simple as that, and I'll learn from that mistake. Alexgx out. Edited: Added:

01:28, 10 December 2010 CloudKade11 (talk | contribs) (31,279 bytes) (Undid revision 401546739 by 173.57.166.165 Alexgx and these IP's are obviously the same people, Jamko34 possibly is too) (undo). 

If I edit stuff on Wikipedia, it's through this account. Yes, Jamko34 is the same IP address as me, but that's my cousin using my internet. No lies there. My IP address is 173.71.187.168. Thank you very much. Accusing me of things I have not done. - Alexgx

At least you finally decided to open this up for discussion. I tried several times, and you never listened. Which I think was what led to the edit war. The "duration of cast" section is meant as in duration in the house. If you want to include the reunion, then feel free to create another section as well as another template to go with it. Just leave the other section alone. The reunion and the time they spent in the house are very different situations. CloudKade11 (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Duration of Cast is mostly about the episodes of the show. The reunion is more like a special rather than a normal episode of the show; thirdly that's only my opinion, it’s rather better if the duration of cast only have the episodes. You guys can ask an admin for their say on this before having more edit wars as I was trying to get Bad Girls Club 5 a Wikipedia:Good article, but it failed since the show was, at the time, airing. I created all the pages for all the shows, they only been up since this July of 2010, whereas the main article The Bad Girls Club, is a different story, so no Seasons 1-6 has not been up for a long time. The articles of the Bad Girls Club are all run by IPs who keeps vandalizing the pages that I am not monitoring right now, as I am trying to get Season 5 back to its Good Status. But that's what I have to say about this, thanks AJona1992 (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

CloudeKade11, I didn't vandalize the article. I simply removed the reunion because it seemed, and yes I'm saying this, not needed. Some other person from a different IP address added it to Duration of Cast.. Please don't accuse me of stuff I haven't done.Alexgx (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The Reunion is a special not an episode. Most articles regarding other shows do not include reunion shows. AJona1992 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That is simply why I removed it from the article. This time, I did not add the reunion to the Duration of Cast. And if I did, I wouldn't of removed a note or put Blondie for Kristen. Alexgx (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to respond? Alexgx (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing left to say really. CloudKade11 (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Scream 2

Is there a policy that supports your argument? You're right in the sense that each link leads to the same page; however, and perhaps you just simply didn't notice, each character is linked to their own sub-section of that one particular article. Personally, I think it makes more sense to have those links; since the effort is already there and is helpful, I don't see the harm in leaving it in. Perhaps I missed something and you are right; maybe the article will be terribly flawed if I revert your edit. I don't know. It's never been an issue before. I'd like to talk about this so we can come to an agreement; obviously you and I both want what's best for the page. Thanks. Geeky Randy (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but I just believe it's pointless to link all the names to the same page. People can just be linked to the top of the characters page, and choose which character they want to learn more about. I mean what's the point of having all the links listed in aphabetical order from each film on the character's page then if no one will ever see it? CloudKade11 (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

90210

An infobox poster is appropriate. Please don't make things up, it can be a screen-cap, a poster, or inter-title. You don't just remove things, you leave it until you find a better one. But there is nothing better than having everything on one sheet. That's the title, cast list and cast photo rolled into one. So how is it not Encyclopedic? Jayy008 (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Then add a screen-cap like you said before. But that photo has an article within, and those kinds of photos are not used here. CloudKade11 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to add a new section the 90210 (season 3) discussion page, but I figured I would join the conversation here. Now, I don't mean to take Jay008's side everytime, but I do agree with him most of the time. Right now I'm not understanding why the Infobox image was removed? It's been there for months and I personally do not see what the problem is. I think that if you want to find a better image that's great, but you should leave the current image there until you do find a better one, cause it's possible that you may not find one. You can not remove something from a page simply because you do not like it or are dissatisfied with it. I do not recall there being any other complaints about the image. Ryanlively (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, from the comment above, I can't add anything. The summary "It's not Encyclopedic" is incorrect. The only issue with the image is the source. How about we add one from their official Facebook page? As that's from The CW itself. However, I don't have the software on my PC to make the images smaller. Do any of you two? Jayy008 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

PS, CloudKade, please don't say "not used here" like you actually know that for a fact. Promotional posters are always preferred, as that's what's released to promote the season. A screen cap is a last resort... See Smallville, as soon as a poster became availabe, the screen-cap was removed. this is the only reliable and appropriate image I can find, it's not as good as the current one, but it's from a reliable source (The CW). Out of those two, I don't have a preference. Jayy008 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, Jay09, this is why no one likes having any sort of discussion with you. Your rude and disrespectful in a way that no one notices but the victim. I can say what I want, because...this might be a bit of a shocker to you but...you don't own me. Hm, try visiting this article...Therapy. (Hope that helped!) CloudKade11 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

PS, Jay009 you've added the Gossip Girl and Smallville screen-caps I believe. Why can't you do the same here? CloudKade11 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this one is good too. It has all the current castmembers of season 3. Any of the three images discussed are fine with me. But no, I don't know how to make the images smaller. Although personally I think it should be up to the person who wanted to change it in the first place. Ryanlively (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I should have kept the "poster" there until an actual one was found. Also, just looked at the link and I believe that photo was already used here, but Hayy009 decided to remove it. CloudKade11 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

CloudKade11 there really is no reason to be that disrespectful, I have read what Jay008 has said here and in addition I have seen several other conversations between the two of you. From my perspective, it seems as though much of the hostility comes from your end. I think that he discusses any issues with you in a fairly decent way which you take as rude. Anytime you have a conversation/discussion with him it turns very disrespectful, rude, and hostile for seemingly no legitimate reason. I personally think that you have a little trouble collaborating with others or taking constructive criticism. I admit the first contact I had with him seemed a little harsh at first, which can still be seen on my talk page if you'd like to take a look, but in the end he is only doing what is best for the pages/articles he is editing. He knows very much what he is doing and is open to collaborating with other editors. There is absolutely no reason the insult him. I think if you'd really just settled down a little you would be able to look past this sort of thing, not just with him but with other editors as well Ryanlively (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

lol Your either desperately seeking Jay009's approval or I'm pretty much having a discussion with Jay009. If you really have been following some of our other discussions, you would know Jay009 isn't the perfect user. I pretty much just copied what he/she did to me a while ago like giving me unnecessary links to pre-school articles. Also, going off topic with your reply was kind of a giveway. CloudKade11 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your reply to that. All I mean is that it is in bad taste to bicker in this way over editing an article. There will always be some sort of disagreement, but there is absolutely no reason to be disrespectful or rude when trying to discuss them. We should all have some sort of civility when talking or responding to other editors. If there is some sort of disagreement, then it should never resort to insulting or offhand behavior or comments, on anyone's behalf. Ryanlively (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sorry it took me so long to reply, sometimes I take the "semi-retired" and "fully-retired." I'm sorry, but I don't understand how I am rude, rudeness to you, CladeKade, is disagreeing with you. What's wrong with disagreeing? That's what discussion's for. In my previous conversation, which you delete, you're rude saying things like "try acting like a normal person for once," etc. I don't know why you're bring this all up. This was out the image in the infobox, which I posted here out of GoodFaith for your opinion on which image you think is better out of the ones available, but again, you just make out I'm being rude asking for your opinion. And deliberately changing putting "009" or "Hayy" point? I removed the image because it was edited, we can't edit other people's photo's - We're hardly allowed to use them - Let alone cut them in half! Stop being a child, grow-up and learn some manors. I do know what I'm doing here, I'm not telling you what to do, I just think it's respectful to post here to explain why I reverted your edit. I also don't know what a "pree-school" article is. I'm also supposed to show you guidelines. PS... Thank you Ryan, for voicing your opinion on the matter. Jayy008 (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what 'manors' are, so I can't help you there. Also, my bad about the Hayy, which was an honest typo. And, just so you know that argument was MONTHS ago, when I was new here. I've learned not to talk to other users on here that way, though I am a little confused that you seem to be rude all the time. You do know that calling another person a "child" as to grow up is being rude and disrepectful, right? Learn some manners please, and maybe we can have a civilized conversation for once. PS, "'CladeKade', is disagreeing" ? How extremely hypocritical of you. CloudKade11 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Accident, sorry! :/. My only issue was how you've spoken to me before and you didn't understand you was wrong at all simply saying maybe it's rude in England. Also, I'm not rude all the time, posting on people's talk pages is nice, most people don't, but I think it's common courtesy to do so. If you would like me to just revert, with no explanation on your talk-page, I will oblige as it's your talk-page, you're rules. Yep, calling somebody a child, is very rude, but I lost my cool and I'm sorry, but you say I'm rude all the time, I've never said anything rude or anything of the sort in the past. Jayy008 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

PS, as you can see, my spelling isn't great, hense "manors". Jayy008 (talk) 16:57, 23

Being Human (North American TV series)

Please read and comment on the discussion regarding the disambiguation in the title. I'm reverting your page moves and recent changes to the articles. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do explain how that show is even remotely Canadian. CloudKade11 (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Being Human is made in Montreal by an independent film & tv production company founded and based in Montreal. http://muse.ca/4105/fiche.asp?id=190 Montreal is a large city in the eastern portion of Canada. http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=5977,40491560&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL It has an NHL team called Les Canadiens de Montréal which literally translates to The Canadians of Montreal but is more commonly known in English as the Montreal Canadiens. If you have seen the Inner SPACE Live Being Human special then you heard Meaghan Rath talk about how nice it is to be able to live at home in Montreal while making a tv show (as opposed to some hotel or short-term apartment rental in New York or Los Angeles). There is also this article about the start of production http://www.channelcanada.com/Article4866.html to consider. I think that adds up to a more than remote connexion to Canada. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Skins (North American TV series) page move earlier today...

Please abide by and participate in the formal page move request for skins. You had no participation in the formal page move request and with a nomination and 4 votes of support the sixth person decided to move it as the opposition was silent. That was 4 days ago. Your move of the page a few hours ago was contrary to consensus and could be seen as intentionally disruptive. Given that i am the primary opposition it would probably be inappropriate that i undo your latest move but someone else might undo it. Your move of Being Human (North American TV series) resulted in that article being fully protected from editing.
I am not looking to be mean or pick on a new show you like. I happen to be Canadian and know where to go to get info on television productions in Canada and when i find one is made in-by-and-for Canada then it is Canadian and if it has a co-by or co-for the US then it is bi-national. I should note that "made for" is not the same as "FOX bought broadcast rights to it". There are not many such shows and even less that require disambiguation in their article titles. By extremely great chance two such shows premiered on the same day and at the same time concurrently in Canada and the US.
The discussion about the move of skins can be found at Talk:Skins (North American TV series)#Requested move and the discussion about disambiguation in general for these and any future shows is found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style#Disambiguation of TV show titles. Please review and participate in the discussions rather than just move pages. For your information it was not me who moved the show 4 days ago.[1] Core2012 made the same inquiry via email to me a couple of days ago. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've reverted your edits and responded to your message on Talk:Skins (North American TV series). You've put forward no good argument or sources for the changes, and even so, you should have consulted with the other authors beforehand. I hope your edits and messages were a moment of fury and you will calm down and edit more considerately next time. — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Bad Girls Club (season 6)

There's a discussion currently going on about your removals on The Bad Girls Club (season 6), I strongly encourage you to come and discuss these matters so we can have a mutual agreement to what needs to be done. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:5teevee5#Changing and choosing images

Hello, CloudKade11. Would you mind weighing in on this, especially the Téa Delgado part? Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

CloudKade, clearly you are aware of 5teevee5's mass OLTL pic changes, please do not explode at me if I revert a couple. We discuss things here.— TAnthony^Talk 03:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Then give a proper explanation. Don't just revert because you don't like the image. I'm not supporting 5teevee5's actions, just following procedures. CloudKade11 (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I like how you warned him. NOT.— TAnthony^Talk 16:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In the current pic recently added by 5teevee5 without discussion, Woods looks mad and/or like he has to go to the bathroom. CloudKade, I'm not sure why I have to defend reverting it to the pre-existing, previously-accepted-by-all and more pleasant photo, but here I am doing so. I myself like to follow procedure and make sure others do as well, but I resent that you did not feel the need to question 5teevee5's unexplained pic change(s) but felt the need to chastise my revert and revert it yourself. Tacky.— TAnthony^Talk 03:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Um no. Sorry that's not even a reason. Because he looks like he's about to go to the bathroom? Yea no. I can tell your not gonna be mature about this situation so I'm not really going to bother with you. Change it again with the reason because he has to go to the bathroom or looks angry then you'll be reported. You've been warned. I'm just following the guidelines here. CloudKade11 (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The photo is less appealing because he has an uncomfortable look on his face! He's staring off into space! In the previous photo he is smiling and welcoming. What else do you want? Would you care to explain why you think this photo is better? — TAnthony^Talk 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For the last time, I don't think either photo is better or worse in any way. All I'm saying is to give a GOOD explanation on why your reverting the image. "he looks..." is not a reasonable explanation. Please try to understand that. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Choosing between photos is a matter of taste, I think "his expression is bad" is a perfectly fine description of why I don't like the photo. If you don't care either way, who are you to decide that my reasoning is not "good"? You're not defending one photo or another, and no one else seems to care either way. You are making a fuss for the sake of making a fuss. Please cite the guideline that says an editor cannot change a photo or the text of an article every single day if he so desires? There is no "don't change a photo without a vote" rule, it is just common courtesy to avoid potentially "controversial" edits without discussion. 5teevee5 ignored that courtesy, and I reverted his change. No one else seems to care which photo is there, not even you. But here you are railing about "procedure" and "guidelines." What strikes me is the fact that you revert and warn me, and yet you didn't wring your hands about regulations when 5teevee5 changed the photo without any explanation. Where's his "GOOD explanation" why his photo is an improvement? I appreciate your attempt to police articles but you're misguided on this one.— TAnthony^Talk 05:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the procedure you're looking for here CloudKale11 is WP:BRD. The picture was boldly changed, an editor reverted, and now we're supposed to discuss it. Reverting without discussion because you want this to go through some process is silly. AniMate 05:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry AniMate, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It's like someone adding info that others may disagree upon. Which would then lead to a discussion. So your saying that having a discussion would be silly? Sorry, I'm a bit confused on what exactly your trying to say here. CloudKade11 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm saying the idea that any new information added to an article must stay in an article until you are satisfied that it has been discussed to your satisfaction or removed with a reason you approve of or you will report people is pretty silly. AniMate 18:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Admin intervention AniMate ... CloudKade, I believe he's agreeing that the time for discussion was when 5teevee5 changed the pic, not when I reverted it. But I'll leave it for a bit and see if anyone else actually cares.— TAnthony^Talk 03:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, now I understand why CloudKade11 never weighed in on the above linked discussion. LOL. Some of 5teevee5's choices have just been awful, and he has admitted to a few being bad choices. I simply cannot understand why he chooses images where the characters clearly look upset or deeply disturbed, or side-face shots, over images where the characters have a relaxed or smiling expression and where their faces are clearly seen. I understand "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," but I'm not seeing how a facial expression of "angry" or whatever else is usually an opinion. We all know what a sad face looks like, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

I saw your move of the Danielle Rayburn article, and felt that I should inform/remind you of WP:COMMONNAME (whichever applies to your knowledge, or lack there of, of this policy). Just because a fictional character officially changes their name...it does not mean their article title should be changed to that name. I will not be moving the article back, as I do not feel like getting into a long debate about this (seeing as I feel you would debate me), and I don't care much in this case. I'm just letting you know of this policy -- a policy that I have had to inform various Wikipedia soap opera editors of. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sex symbol‎

The section heading in this article refers to the decade in which the person was most active, not the decade in which the source is. The source for Marilyn Monroe is from the 1990s, surely you don't think we should move her to the 1990s. By this definition Sofia Vergara definitely belongs in the 2000s, not 2010s. She had 8 films in the 2000s, none at all so far in the 2010s. She had about 10 nominations in the 2000s, none at all at the 2010s. By requesting a source, did you mean that I should bring a source that she was mainly active in the 2000s? Do you really think I should give the 10-20 sources that will be required to show this and put them all in the article? That's quite absurd, but can be done. --Muhandes (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to be rude. CloudKade11 (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please show me where I was rude? In fact, re-reading my comment, it seems very polite to me. I was just explaining how the article is built and trying to fathom what your expectation on this edit were. Rude would be to revert you again without asking what you were meaning. As a matter of fact, you have not addressed my question at all. What type of sources are you looking for to be added? --Muhandes (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Soap opera

Just a note to let you know that Yes or No does not cut it and to invite you to express your view a little better. Aubrey is clearly non notable. Though looking at your talk page alone it is clear you fail to grasp many of the guidelines. All is not lost, anytime you need a hand, just ask. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 02:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If you even bothered to look at the date of the convos presented above, you would know most are over a year old. Thank you. P.S. What was the point of creating a section here? There is already a discussion on Aubrey's discussion page. Completely pointless. CloudKade11 (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Year old... Issues over article titles dated April 11? Given your less than satisfactory opossition to a merge on the said talk page - I thought you may not reply there. I also noticed you said rudeness is unattractive. That is your point of view, as I was not trying to be rude, your POV again. Now, why would you like Aubrey to have her own article? Why in your opinion do you feel she passes WP's policy on notability?RaintheOne ^BAM 03:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Soap Articles in Trouble!

Hey CloudKade11, I wanted to let you know, since I enjoy your contributions and intent on improving all soap articles, that the user User:Gh87 is intentionally nominating hundreds (literally, hundreds) of soap character articles for deletion. In the past week, his grueling mistreatment has spread throughout the AMC characters most of all and has been trying to delete GL, ATWT, OLTL, DAYS, Santa Barbara, Sunset Beach (etc) characters nd history articles. He is also deleting images, all of which users have spent countless hours working on that he/she wants to delete due to "lack of notability". Just look at the contribution page - it is literally sickening at what he/she is doing. Account and IP users have tried to help but he bosses everyone around and gets admins on his side when others try to save the articles. Please help save these articles because I know you appreciate and love the soap world. Please spread the word to other users to participate in deletion discussions to save them. Again, please help and spread the word. Otherwise, users no longer have any articles to contribute for after he/she deletes them.149.4.204.17 (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What a canvasser you are. Instead of moaning about it, why don't you clean the articles up - an effort to drive the articles foward and improve them.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

All the IP was doing was letting me know what was going on. They didn't "canvas" me into anything. CloudKade11 (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Soap Operas alert

As a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas, and in accordance with the appropriate notification in deference to canvassing, I am alerting your attention to several current discussions for deletion pertaining to soap opera characters. This is an invitation to participate in the discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Dashes and soaps

Can you stop adding "-present" to the dates. I think you are confused though... You performed the edit quite a few times and said "The show is not over" [2] ... I do not understand this confusion fully though - as there was a hidden message saying "Do not include "present" as this dash denotes that the duration is ongoing" [3] - but you always do what ever you like - so it is obvious you ignored it - because you removed it. - — <--- Can you see that one is bigger than the other? Well the bigger one means ongoing, so there was no need to remove it or add "-present".Rain the 1 02:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. If it means the same as ongoing, why change it at all? Also, I'm not going to sit here and even try to work out whatever the situation may be, because you're rude and not easy to talk to. CloudKade11 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm really easy to talk to - I'm down to earth. You seem just accuse anyone who shares a different opinion from your own as being "rude". It is not fair Cloudkade - just because I do not support fansites on Wikipedia you seem to brush me off. It can make sense, the whole point of using the dash is to remove clutter - it is a simple way of saying the same thing. An infobox is meant to be a quick rundown - short summary - the main points in a nutshell. If there is a chance to make it smaller and read the same thing - why not take it? So please could you atleast think it over for a while.Rain the 1 23:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You just proved my point by accusing me of keeping Wikipedia in the style of fansites. I'm not the one creating those huge summaries on the articles, just so you know. I'm also not the one creating a page for every recurring character. You want issues on the articles resolved? Try not being so disrespectful and maybe someone will listen. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Cloudkade - look around - I work with so many editors improving soap articles - If they did not listen why I would spend most of my days having discussions about them. We work on a civil level see. I won't be rude to anyone, but I'll be as honest as possible, I make an effort not to cross a line if I disagree with someones view - it is respect - I will always talk it over because I know that nothing comes from conflict. I am not much for trying to prove a point, anyone reading this is able to review your contribs in which you have repeatidly called other editors rude, been uncivil, voiced support for fansite articles. I'll always remember the case of Aubrey from OLTL.. It does not have to be like this Cloudkade - from right now - we can draw the line and forget - you are interested to work on these articles - as am I - we can move foward, at best find a middle ground, as a bonus one day we could actually agree with each other.Rain the 1 23:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kony 2012

I self-closed the AFD I opened. Please pay attention in the future.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I literally posted my vote a few seconds after you decided to close it. Oh well. CloudKade11 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

All My Children and One Life to Live help

I was wondering since someone created the List of characters from Y&R from 1970s to 2010s, can you help me with this? Thanks! Jester66 (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2012 (

Jenni Rivera

I apologize for my last post, I meant to put it on another user's talk page. Thank you for undoing the vandalism by other Wikipedia users on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24 biggest fan (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Twitter is not an acceptable source for a death report. Jokestress (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Twitter isn't the only source out there. The NY and LA Times, plus numerous Mexican news stations and CNN are reporting that the authorities have confirmed her death. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't source a death to Twitter. Too many hoaxes. Once someone added a reliable sources, the fact was verifiable. Please do not use Twitter as a source for facts in the future. Jokestress (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm Curb Chain. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Curb Chain (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Why did you undo my edit on Jennifer Lawrence? Take a look at the articles of the other Academy Awards, Golden Globe Awards, Screen Actors Guild Awards and .... winning actors or actresses. Do those articles have a section like that in their infoboxes? Also, I wrote my reason for removing that part. It would be better if you looked at that before calling it "Vandalism".Keivan.f^Talk 13:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please take it to the talk page before removing anything of such great extent otherwise it'll be reported as vandalism. Thank you. CloudKade11 (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me tell you something. You are the only one who has problem about removing those unnecessary details. Anyway, we're talking now. Tell me what's your reason for keeping those details? Keivan.f^Talk 16:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Lawrence awards

In regards to separate awards pages, you either have separate tables like the ones currently that list each award such as Academy, Golden Globe, bafta, etc separate OR you have a complete table of awards all together. You do not do both. It's redundant and adds unnecessary clutter. LADY LOTUS • TALK 23:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

American Horror Story: Freak Show

Hello, you recently edited American Horror Story: Freak Show, adding information without a verifiable source referenced, which led to your edits being reverted. Disruptive editing is not tolerated on Wikipedia, and such behaviour may lead to accusations of edit warring. Please only add predictive info along with reliable sourcing. Also, based on your indignant retort, I recommend a read in civility. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Julia Nolan

Hi, I have hidden Julia from Big Brother 17 (U.S.) because although she is confirmed to be entering the house it won't be until Thursday so we can add her then. --MSalmon (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

2016 POTUS

Your vote on Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#RFC_Survey doesn't include a line such as : Option X - [comment here], which will make the tally easier in the end. This will be helpful when RfC concludes. Thanks! Spartan7W § 01:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:James Lastovic as Joey.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:James Lastovic as Joey.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kyler Pettis as Theo Carver.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kyler Pettis as Theo Carver.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thaao Penghlis as Andre.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thaao Penghlis as Andre.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Nyle DiMarco

Yes, both of those count as sources per WP:BLPSELFPUB if I am not mistaken, since those indicate the subject is cool with their date of birth being out there. I feel a little bad about reverting all those people who added it, but not one did the work to find a legitimate source as you have. MisterRandomized (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello, I'm Callmemirela. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 23), 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Hello, I'm Calidum. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Donald Trump have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Calidum ¤ 20:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CloudKade11. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Hello, I'm AJFU. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  AJFU  (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Milo Yiannopoulos. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about your idol but it's true. It's going to be added one way or another in the coming days with properly sourced material. CloudKade11 (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP is very clear: we must have strong, reliable sources for a claim like that, and the sources must be cited in the edit. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

True, glad they are there now. CloudKade11 (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Only warning: do not make personal attacks or cast aspersions. Claiming a white supremacist child abuse apologist is my idol is utterly unacceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

List of characters and deaths in the Final Destination series listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of characters and deaths in the Final Destination series. Since you had some involvement with the List of characters and deaths in the Final Destination series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars Season 25

If you are going to continue to add information that gets reverted, please participate in the discussion on the talk page. It is in everyone's interested to try and reach a consensus based upon discussion. Thank you. Knope7 (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Survivor reverts

It doesn't matter that Survivor premieres today. It doesn't premiere until 8 PM Eastern time which is the earliest that another season should be added to the infobox. Currently, you have reverted Survivor (U.S. TV series) the same number of times that I have so threatening to report me is meaningless. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The main page is always updated the week of the premiere. It has been since the 21st season. CloudKade11 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the main page in general, I'm specifically referring to the infobox. Also, even if the infobox is always updated the week of the premiere that's irrelevant because it's not supposed to be. "The number of seasons (US) or series (UK) produced. Use one or the other, not both. The parameter should only be incremented once the first episode of that season or series has aired," Template:Infobox television 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CloudKade11. You have new messages at Talk:13 Reasons Why.
Message added 13:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Alex^TW 13:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:BigBrother20 cast.png

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) 17:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CloudKade11. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CloudKade11. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Show the cast.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Show the cast.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) 04:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AmyTheWalkingDead.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AmyTheWalkingDead.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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AmyTheWalkingDead.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AmyTheWalkingDead.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) 17:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:CloudKade11/sandbox

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:CloudKade11/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)