User talk:Spshu/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Naming conventions

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

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

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

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

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

And the general rule:

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

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

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

Station Venture Operations

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

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

November 2012

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

If you bother to read, the information and reason was listed above in the "Reminder" section that was renamed to Station Venture Operations. Spshu (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm settling this at WP:AN3. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234)

22:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

Edit warring on KNSD

Your recent editing history at KNSD shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

KXAS-TV

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

Edits at NBC part-O&Os

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

Disney Channels Worldwide

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

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

??? How else would I show BSkyB runs a license Sky Movies Disney and show that there was previous a Disney run Disney Cinemagic and that Disney runs all other Disney Channels in the UK? bgcolor is not a container tag like the font tag is. Spshu (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Now you have marked all Disney channels as being run by licensee since you just stripped out the color. Look if you intent to remove the color then properly replace the color. Spshu (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not about what show is or isn't Disney, it is only about Accessibility guidelines. The very dark grey made it hard for people to read. It made it impossible for screen readers (aka the blind) to know the information.

There MUST be some other way to identify the information besides colour.
The way you added colour was done wrong.
If you want to change the color, do it right and you pick the colour. I've been yelled at one too many times when just changing colour. People scream alot louder when changing colour over just removing it.

Bgwhite (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Shows? What are you talking about?

You are enforcing accessibility guidelines to the point of destroying the content/information. No this is about you mucking the content up to making the information unintelligible as much as you claim the coloring does. You made it look like BSkyB owns all the UK channels not just the one it should show. That makes in unintelligible.

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

First off, stop shouting and yelling. I won't participate in any discussion with that kind of crap. It is also obvious you haven't read WP:COLOUR. It is hard to have a discussion when doesn't read and only vents because of frustration or ignorance.

As I said earlier, "background colour chosen made it very difficult to read." As many people would be unable to read the information because of the very dark background, I removed the background. If a group of people are unable to read content because of a design consideration, the design consideration goes.
I'm not removing anything. I have told you that you can add back the colour. You can choose your colour based on WP:COLOUR... Best if not red, green or dark. Pastels tend to work best. WP:COLOUR also contains a link to Help:Using colours.
Just make sure something else tells the info besides the color. The most common way is to use symbols, such as star or cross. From WP:COLOUR, "Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information."
<font> is not used anywhere on Wikipedia. The article contained two ways to do colour. One for colouring the entire row. One for colouring just one cell. See Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters for help. The help page uses <span> tags, but "bgcolor="gray" can be substituted.

Bgwhite (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

First off, yelling is all CAPS. Bold is to stress with out yelling. So, stop repeatedly accusing me of doing something that I did not do. No, I have read WP:COLOUR, once again false accusations. The venting of frustration is because you are not paying attention to the discussion. You are the cause!!! Because you are responding in ignorance of what I have said. Since your responses don't correspond to what I said. Thus you are acting in ignorance of the discussion. Because I go to make the correction you want but you mess up the article, since you didn't even follow your own direction as pointed out in the previous post.

You state "... I removed the background." in 1. then 2. "I'm not removing anything." So you did now you attempt to claim that you didn't. But you want 3 but remove the background info that would have made it easier for me to do so.

So now that you have ignored, attacked and lied to me. Go away. You are banned from my talk page. Spshu (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And thus we have the classic internet moronic troll syndrome.... Instead of the topic, one results to name calling and get lost in anger. "Thus you show that you are an !&()_1()7 and should be yelled at. ". (emphisis yours) You are saying you are yelling by your own admission. Your are name calling by your own admission. The points you brought up are answered in WP:COLOUR and in my retort. You may have read WP:COLOUR, but you didn't read it. You selectively quote, I said, I didn't remove anything because you can add it back. I also said people cannot see the text as is.

It is your choice to yell, scream and "ban". Big deal. I could care less. In the end, you are the one hurting the article as you don't want to follow accessibility guidelines and the five pillars of Wikipedia. You are the one not adding back in the color correctly. I've shown you where the info is found to add color back in. You choice.... Good bye. Bgwhite (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

WIBW-TV

Hi Spshu, I have a question for you. Is there a reason why you removed the "News team" from WIBW-TV? All, if not most, news articles have the news team on there. This one had a source to back it up. The "Former staff" I could see being removed, especially if they don't have a reference. I'm just curious as to why they were removed. I believe they should stay because 1. I think it is good information to have on here and 2. it had a source. Unless there was discussion someplace on Wikipedia that I wasn't aware about, then it should be discussed on the Talk page. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan^Talk 22:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times at WP:TVS including Staff List redux. What other article have or do not have is not relevant that just might mean that editor that know of the discussions banning this extraneous information have not visited the page or have been reverted like you have improperly done. Primary source is not sufficient for inclusion in an article. Spshu (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism of WMC-TV

Hello, I'm Trevorbirchett. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Do not leave vandalism notice for your edit warring. Spshu (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at WMC-TV shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

I know you warned the other user, but it is only fair to warn you as well because you reverted just as many edits as they have. Corkythehornetfan^Question? 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, he reverted 4 times to my 3 reverts and thus numerically has violated 3RR. Secondly, he never engaged in discussion started on his talk page and acknowledged I was right in his edit summary in making a reversal. Then attempted to label it as vandalism. Do not post false warnings. Spshu (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Marvel TV - Mockingbird-SHIELD spinoff

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Daredevil (TV series), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

First no content was removed except for a trivial cameo WP:TVCAST. You know that I have valid reason as were given on in edit summaries and on the talk page. The non-edit summary is the response to an edit warrior and attempt OWN like yourself. You were informed at Talk:Daredevil (TV series)#Sourcing that you are in violation of WP:WPNOTRS despite your misinterpretations. Place a false warniing on my talk page does absolve you for your violations. Spshu (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

We'll keep the Daredevil discussion on that talk, but on to your revert at Marvel TV, PLEASE tell me where in Deadline's source for the SHIELD spinoff in your "restore" edit it explicitly states that this spinoff is a Mockingbird show. Headlining the series does not equal it being a Mockingbird show. Secondly, you reverted valid formatting changes for proper English. My edit here is the best we can do for the time being with all the information given. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

First line of the source: "Palicki and Blood’s characters Lance Hunter and Barbara 'Bobbi' Morse aka Mockingbird..." Palicki character is Mockingbird. So, Mockingbird isn't a part of the show? How can you tell me that? Secondly, as written it does not state that it is only a Mockingbird show as it stated "...an unnamed Mockingbird spinoff series from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D...." and "SHIELD Mockingbird spinoff series" in the production table (this doesn't say "Mockingbird spin off") does not mean it is a explicitly only a Mockingbird show. It only recognizes that that it is a SHIELD spinoff with the recognizable character as Mockingbird. Spshu (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been off wiki for a bit and just restored my version. Please let me explain why. I understand where you are coming from. First the edit has styling and formatting changes in it, so please don't revert the whole thing if you still don't agree. On to the content. I'm not denying that Mockingbird is part of the show, far from it. But in the English language, the order of words that you use does not give the intended meaning that you are trying to convey. If we breakdown the wording that you are using: " an unnamed Mockingbird spinoff series from Agents of SHIELD". This wording means that there is a spinoff series to AoS, that is unnamed, and centered around Mockingbird. Which the source, by the way, does not give us. The only thing the source says is that Palicki and Blood are in discussions to headline the series. Proper wording to convey what you and I both want to say is either my edit OR something along the lines of "an unnamed spinoff series starring Mockingbird and Hunter". You should not be isolating Mockingbird regarding this. As for putting Mockingbird down in the production table, that also gives the incorrect impression, because, as continually stated, we don't know that it is explicitly a Mockingbird show. It does not, as you say "recognizes that it is a SHIELD spinoff with the recognizable character as Mockingbird." You get the interpretation, based on how the English language works, how I described above, that it is centered on Mockingbird, which you and I both have said is not the case. Now, we could shuffle the words around in that first sentence to accurately state this, but we are already clustered there saying info about the creators, how it is from S2 plotlines and isn't going to get a backdoor pilot. Why can't this info be a new sentence as I changed it too? It's the cleanest, most effective and informative way to present this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Except you seem not to have basic grasp of primary sources, why would any one take your word on the English language. It is effectively centered as Hunter is her ex-husband. Yes, the word did convey what I meant, but I understand that logic challenged person as yourself my not understand and you are dropping some information. I am not "isolating" as the wording was "an unnamed Mockingbird spinoff series from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. S2," as I did not just state that Mockingbird was the name of the series and that was spinoff from SHIELD plus in the production table "SHIELD Mockingbird spinoff series" was listed not as "Mockingbird spinoff series" as you attempt to claim again. How many times to I have to correct you? Nor was it in Italics to indicate title.

A second sentence would give it undue weight in the article as it is about Marvel TV. Now if you started a subarticle for the show within Marvel TV article then fine, but I add that info to the Mockingbird article § In other media.

I found wording ("Mockingbird & Ex-husband" as that is the roles they play) and a wikilink (to the above) that should work better for you and you have reversed it. A wikilink allows you so you don't have to be to redunate and point some else where for information. Spshu (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: ). Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Electricburst1996: Starting a conversation about someone during a time when you know they are unable to take part in that conversation, is just plain childish.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: He was blocked for 72 hours; his block could expire tomorrow. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I know all of that and the fact that you started the conversation before tomorrow, during a time when you know Spshu is unable to take part in that conversation, is just plain childish.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Electricburst1996: except that you had tried to ensure that wouldn't happen by asking KrakatoaKatie to revoke his talk page access and to turn the block into indefinite, even insisting about it after the request to go to ANI. LjL (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, LjL. The whole thing was an attempt by Electricburst1996 to have Spshu indef blocked before he would ever be able to defend himself against it. There's no assuming any sort of faith here, it's time to call a spade a spade. With the return to this conversation today, I've gone ahead and thrown the boomerang myself.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Spshu: As you will see when/if you decide to join that conversation, there is sufficient evidence (and justifiable reasoning) for a boomerang towards Electricburst1996. Personally, I won't do it myself (I just have a personal belief that boomerangs should be thrown by the editor originally complained about) but, if thrown by you or someone else, I would certainly support it.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Laff (TV network)

Personally, I think the programming list deserves to be as complete as any of the other lists of such a variety. If you think it's an indiscriminate list of information, then by definition, all of the "list of programs broadcast by" articles are indiscriminate. I recommend that you start an AfD discussion on those articles, but I must warn you - previous discussions were closed as "keep." Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 16:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

See response at [Talk:Laff (TV network)#Programming list|its talk page]]. So, no, I am not going follow your order to file AfDs. Spshu (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to PBS Kids does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Electricburst1996, stop harassing me. You are quite aware that I generally include an edit summary. My computer was going down and either had to save my work or lose it. Spshu (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: ). Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Valiant Comics

Hey! Didn't want to revert your recent changes to In other media on Valiant Comics without disputing it with you directly.

Your revision incorrectly states that the media in question is self-published, when it is fact it is not published by Valiant directly. The work definitely fits under In other media, just like the movie listing. --Bmanpa (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the revision indicated that the source is self-published ie. licensee of Valiant, Pendant Productions, is the source for them publishing the audio dramas. So call it primary sourcing which is frowned upon. I also indicated WP:UNDUE, since the Pendant Productions is a primary source and not a reliable source, thus not eligible to be in the article. Spshu (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you pulled the WP:UNDUE argument out of your ass. Primary sources do NOT inherently lend undue weight to an article if they are used. No mention of primary sources are made in the policy page. Neutrality of sources is mentioned, but not primary sources. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Having looked into it and learned for myself, I do believe Spshu probably meant WP:PRIMARY instead of WP:UNDUE. Even so, you are correct that primary sources do not inherently lend Undue weight to an article, nor are they against Wikipedia rules. It is however not good to use them in excess. A few are definitely okay under Wikipedia rules, just not a whole article that only uses Primary sources. --Bmanpa (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I gotcha! My mistake. I not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, so insider sourcing isn't something I realized was an issue. Several sources exist outside the primary Valiant/Pendant sphere, though, so I will revise my edit to link to those instead.

Thanks for cluing me in!--Bmanpa (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

False claim of improper refactoring

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melvin P. McCree, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 04:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Um, no he incorrectly failed to refractor. Please actually learn what is going on will you. At this rate, you basic a stalker. Spshu (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The claim of refactoring of Bearcat's comment here, and reverted here, was completely sound and justified. It does not matter if it was improper or not - if we're still not clear on this, I strongly suggest that you read WP:TPO word for word. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I have read it word for word. YOU WILL CEASE harassing me. It was not "...completely sound and justified." Per TPO particularly WP:REDACT] :

But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes. Any deleted text should be marked with ~~...~~ or ~~...~~, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text, e.g., deleted.

Read those words. I quoted Bearcat "non-metropolitan" which the editor removed and I correctly REDACT it. Spshu (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It is up to the original commenter, NOT you, to take action. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It does because it looks like I misquoted Bearcat. Thus causing the issue in the notice: "However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melvin P. McCree, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well." Which is what the other editor did. It basical change the nature of my post and left mine hanging.--Spshu (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

What part of "It is up to the original commenter, NOT you" do you not understand? Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are you re-hashing a 2 month old incident? meamemg (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Meamemg: Largely because he changed the subject heading for this warning. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Meamemg:, because, he is wikihounding me as he has in his head that I must be ban for good. He had nothing else to do with the AfD, just this notice. Administrators don't seem to care. Spshu (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Valiant Comics marketing section tittles

Hello, I'm Electricburst1996. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Valiant Comics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It was adequately explained. It is you that have not explained your edits. And the titles are or seems to be promotional titles that Valiant has used. We are not here to promote them. Spshu (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yet another one of your poorly thought-out arguments. You give absolutely no reasoning beyond "we should not promote them", which amounts to WP:IDLI. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

We have neutrality rules and no COI, so it is though out. Spshu (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

So? How does that even work in this scenario? Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 00:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: ). Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

@Darkwind:, since I can not challenge, or revert, vandalism or disruptive editor, please take care of these nonsensical edits: adding some unrelated Japanese anime to DreamWorks. Spshu (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
@Darkwind:. DreamWork Animation-Universal deal has not closed yet. But editors are editing Major film studio and DreamWorks Animation as if it has. Spshu (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not obligated to perform requested edits for users that I have blocked. Please stop pinging me, unless you have some material contribution to make to our conversation above. Thank you. –Darkwind (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Comet (TV network)

Specifically, for this - [1] - while your WP:PRIMARY tirade did explain most of the edit, it did NOT explain why you removed the following paragraph: "The network's programming consists of content from science fiction and related genres, with a mix of theatrically released feature films and select off-network series from the 1960s to the 2000s (such as Stargate SG-1 and the 1990s revival of The Outer Limits)./ref name="Outer Places"/ This gives Comet a more distinctive format than that commonly found on other multicast networks such as MeTV, Antenna TV and Decades, which maintain a general entertainment programming format." Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It was YOUR WP:PRIMARY tirade and personal attack. You don't explain anything why should I? How about the source doesn't support the sentence and the site seems to be an Outer Limit fan site. Seems obvious at first glance Outer Limit/Outer Place. Stop placing user warning templates when you directly indicate that there is a reason for the edit. Spshu (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Comet (TV network). Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 15:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No you request that Primary source be removed (" I don't think it's sufficient. ...") I pointed to that edit summary when removing the primary sources [2]. So, since the source should be remove, the information supported by said sourced should be removed.

And yes, I can edit my own talk page, even your edits, so long as I don't misrepresent your statements. I has also been pointed out that you continue miss use warnings, thus the edits. A reason was given and furture explained here. There for, placing an another user warning template is incorrect and incorrect to begin with. Spshu (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Newquay

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

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

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: ). Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You were mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#About the edit warring blocks. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: ). Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)