User talk:BornonJune8/Archive4

Hi there, thanks for all your work on Major League Baseball on NBC. However, you know full well that Wikipedia is not a directory (see WP:DIRECTORY) as this was pointed out to you by Tvx, numerous times. So you waited a few months and re-added all of those lists. That's not the way to go about this. Please start an RfC if you feel you must re-add this material. Please don't edit war; you already did it once, last year, and I would rather not see you get blocked for edit warring, because I think you're adding a lot of good material to Wikipedia and are a good editor at heart, but these lists are wildly inappropriate. LAroboGuy (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2017 (UTCThe last time that I checked, you were the one who initiated this particular discussion (and you didn't sound quite sure or definitive over where to go with this) based on a gut instinct. And then you make these passive aggressive warnings and threats to sway me to not to continue doing such a thing that you don't entirely agree with:

The list of schedules is not sourced. Also, it seems like it's an example of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I might be wrong, but I don't think any of that stuff belongs and it's cluttering up the page. So I'm going to take it out. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAroboGuy (talk • contribs) 16:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LAroboGuy, the schedules were reinstated by the same user and I took them out again. Tvx1 14:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit funny and ironic that you seem to worry about my "well-being" on Wikipedia yet at the same time, complain about my manner of editing as if you know much better.

BornonJune8 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That info is a simple list of announcers, which falls directly foul of WP:NOT. If there are announcers from NHL on SportsChannel America ‎shows that played notable roles and were mentioned as such in reliable sources, then they should be mentioned in prose form. Otherwise it's just a list of names, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Find reliable sources that assert the notability of those individuals' participation in that show and it can be added as text. Otherwise, it stays out. The rules are pretty clear on this, and Tv told you that already, months ago. Circling back and surreptitiously adding this list back in is not the way to go about it. Edit warring is not the way to go about it. If you feel strongly that your list should be added back in, without references, I suggest you start an RfC to that effect.LAroboGuy (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about!? Simply put, when SportsChannel America broadcast NHL games, they more than often used announcers from their local, regional affiliates at the time. This can easily be found in these list of the respective teams announcers throughout their respective history. For example, here's a list of the broadcasters for the Chicago Blackhawks (look for the section between 1988-1992):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chicago_Blackhawks_broadcasters#1990s

To better clarify my point:

In effect, SportsChannel America folded the otherwise individual coverage into their national scope. With that being said, why is it okay or acceptable to tell people about the regional sports networks that SportsChannel America folded into their NHL coverage, but I can't tell exactly which announcers worked on said broadcasts? And quite frankly, I need to get in an "edit war" because I'm right on this one. BornonJune8 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that adopting the attitude of "I need to get in an "edit war" because I'm right on this one" is not the best course forward, and you should probably reconsider that statement (see WP:EW). Regardless, your edits that are in contention do not have my support, and so an RfC may be the best course forward. If you have never requested an RfC, I can start it for you. Let me know. LAroboGuy (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should I have said that phrased it better, no but I was in the heat of the moment frustrated. I just interpreted it as, me being encouraged to further debate my own points of view out of your worry out of it soon devolving into an endless back and forth game of "my version is better". BornonJune8 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed that you made some edits to this talk page discussion that are specifically prohibited by WP:TALKNO. You removed my signature from my post here, and you changed the date on one of your posts here. Then you threw in an out-of-context quote here without explanation, and that one is so convoluted I can't even tell what the purpose of it was. Please stop as it's confusing when you mess with talk page discussions like this, which I would imagine is exactly why that behavior is prohibited. LAroboGuy (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I live in California, which is about three hours behind from the East Coast and a lot more elsewhere in the world. I'll be the first to admit that I have it hard to document my comments on her on a decidedly more "universal" time code (so it shouldn't be that big of a deal to make out of). BornonJune8 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tvx1 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Chevy Silverado 200 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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. — fortunavelut luna 09:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Chevy Silverado 200 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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. — fortunavelut luna 09:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2 Broke Girls to List of sitcoms known for negative reception (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BornonJune8. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is Category:Immediate sequels? Please stop populating this category until you've explained what it means and what the inclusion criteria are. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Immediate sequels, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding actor categories to characters, like you have with Harrison Ford.★Trekker (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're even adding them to real people, please stop creating and adding categories.★Trekker (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you were insulted but I'm correct. If you want to discuss you can reply here instead so we can actually have a conversation instead of you trying to yell at me trought six comments on my talkpage.★Trekker (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want to insinuate that what I said or contributed to is "dumb" and want to completely ignore (without any real proof to counter it except the "I'm right, your wrong, deal with it sucker!") what I've been trying to say...

Why shouldn't anybody categorize the characters that Harrison Ford not only originated but defined like Han Solo and Indiana Jones!? I mean, that could go for any other actor or actress with their own Wikipedia category. Should we not do the same for example for William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy regarding their Star Trek characters, if you're going to go than that route. BornonJne8

Why is Dan Aykroyd's character in Ghostbusters expectable yet to categorize, Harrison Ford's characters aren't? And why isn't Joe Friday from Dragnet acceptable. Technically, Aykroyd was playing the original Joe Friday's nephew, but Aykroyd still wrote the screenplay for the 1987 movie, so he still put a lot of his heart and soul into his character either way. BornonJne8

What does an actor do for a living or what is the point of being an actor in the first place? They play a character! If said actor makes a big impression and the character in question goes on to be iconic, then by nature, aren't the two intertwined with one another? I mean, it would be incredibly ignorant to not quickly suggest that for instance Han Solo and Indiana Jones are really the first two things that people think of when asked about Harrison Ford. BornonJune8 12:23 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to in your words "Yell at you" because simply put, you yelled at me first without any real rhyme or reason behind it, so don't make it sound like it doesn't go both ways in this discussion or argument!!! BornonJune8 12:27 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article What Were They Thinking? The 100 Dumbest Events In Television History is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Were They Thinking? The 100 Dumbest Events In Television History until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/What_Were_They_Thinking?_The_100_Dumbest_Events_In_Television_History has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Can't copy entire copyrighted articles into wikipedia..seriously Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:What Were They Thinking, The 100 Dumbest Events in Television History cover.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major League Baseball over-the-air television broadcasters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :-) ! 92.0.216.88 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A set of navboxes you created are up for discussion at Templates for discussion. Just wanted to let you know. oknazevad (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm doing some research work on BET, and trying to find a citation on the idea that BET originally aired as a two-hour block on Nickelodeon in 1980. I realize this was a long time ago, but it says you contributed this information back in August of 2012. I was hoping you might remember where you found that information so I could add a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.224.208 (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elisabeth Shue, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 15:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harrison Ford, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 11:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]