User talk:DangerousJXD/Archive 3

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

Archive 3

Archive 4

WP:SEEALSO

Hey there, regarding this edit, isn't the point of the See also section to point to articles that are tangentially related? Bart's Friend Falls in Love and Lisa's Date with Density from what I can tell, share a similar theme of characters falling in love. Now granted, it would have been ideal if the editor had added an annotation explaining the relationship, but I don't particularly understand your objection to its inclusion. That said, I'm not taking a position on it. Just wanted to float you a query. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Cyphoidbomb. The main reason the see also link is unnecessary isn't because of what the articles have in common, it is because the theme of the two episodes has been used in many, many episodes. I would estimate that around 95 episodes have had love as a main plot device, with many more featuring love in some manner. Linking to one random episode in particular that has a similar theme is illogical because you could easily add 20+ articles into the see also section. Here was the other edit summary in case you weren't aware. So in short, it's pretty much just linking to some random episode. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Reasonable. I was going by your edit summary: "the two episodes have little to do with each other" which would imply they have little or nothing in common. Anyhow thanks for entertaining my curiosity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you contribute to the page I made?

I made a page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_mythological_or_fantastic_beings_in_contemporary_fiction It could use more contributions. Much appreciated... Tamtrible (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Westbrook

Great additions to Westbrook's player profile! Keep it up :) DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! —DangerousJXD (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Curry

What do you disagree with about my edits? The sentence: "Curry is the 2015 NBA MVP and a three time All-star" is easily superior to "Curry won the 2015 MVP Award and is a three time All-star." Why? Count the number of verbs and you'll find out. I think you're being strong-headed here - my edits are entirely valid and of high quality. Best regards, Divergence5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divergence5 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Divergence5, this is a matter for the Stephen Curry talk page so any further comments should be made there. An explanation of why people disagree with the wording you wish to implement has already been provided. If anyone at all is being "strong-headed", it's you. I don't give a damn about the sentence. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Of note is that, as expected, the user who has more of a problem with your wording than myself has changed some of the sentence structure entirely to be superior than anything that has been previously used. —DangerousJXD (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The new version is satisfactory to me. Thanks, Divergence5 —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's great to come to a peaceful resolution. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Punctuation and italics, etc.

Just a heads up that you might want to avoid absolute statements like "Full stops and commas and colons DO NOT get presented in bold or italics", because they're generally wrong--as this one is. Periods, commas, and colons are put in italics and bold all of the time! If a whole sentence is bold or italic, of course the punctuation is as well! It makes no sense to take the period at the end of an italic sentence and make it roman: it's wrong and a waste of time, just like it would be wrong to go in and make a comma or colon in the middle of a bold sentence roman.

And even when we're not talking about cases where the whole sentence is bold or italic, it's not like it's flat-out wrong to put periods and so forth in italics; instead, it's one of several valid systems of using italics and the like. It may not be (and probably isn't--but I'd have to check) the correct system to use on Wikipedia according to the Wikipedia style guide, but it's not universally incorrect and thus doesn't really deserve comments like "Are you for real with this crap" and "Goodness gracious."

Just something to keep in mind . . . Thanks for all of your hard work on Wikipedia! :) DeadpoolRP (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

DeadpoolRP, I suppose "Are you for real with this crap?" could be seen by some as a bit dramatic, but when you consider that I encounter this all of the time and thus feel I must fix it, it's understandable that one may get a little annoyed. Here is the relevant guideline. That guideline is using quotation marks as the example but it applies to all punctuation. The X-Men article is full of these errors that are caused by people using non-logical punctuation when they are working with code. That's why I was particularly annoyed in that situation. These mistake should never have even happened. Even if they are all intentional, it's plain wrong to put the full stop after "Logan" in bold as well. "Logan" is what's supposed to be in bold and nothing else. It's not like the full stop is apart of the name. The same goes for the title of comics. Again, it all stems from people confusing non-logical punctuation methods with code. About my "DO NOT" edit summary: The capital letters were to put emphasis on "do not". If it was a talk page I would have put it in italics; of course you can't do that in edit summaries. About the whole "DO NOT" summary. It would have been clearer if I said: "Full stops, commas, colons, and everything else at that is placed at the end of sentences do not get presented in bold or italics in this situation." I wasn't saying it general (the name "John Johnson, Jr." is an example), just in the situations featured in my edits. Whole sentences are rarely in bold or italics and it's usually just a specific word. If that word is the last word of a sentence, the opportunity for somebody to make the mistake presents itself. I will cease using ALL CAPS in summaries to avoid any confusion. I already rarely use ALL CAPS but now I will use them even less. I rambled a bit but I addressed everything. I was going to include a story about the most idiotic situation like this I have seen (not even on Wikipedia) but this is long enough. I appreciate the thanks. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Anon vandal

72.84.180.163
108.8.40.57
108.8.43.226
72.84.185.156
72.84.180.115
108.8.40.69
108.8.48.87
108.8.45.71
108.8.53.118
108.8.40.251
72.84.188.193
108.8.48.177
108.8.47.68
72.84.181.83

All these IP addresses trace to Maryland, near the southern border of Delaware. All IPs are owned by Verizon. I checked the dates of their contributions and there are only a handful of points where they overlap. My guess it's the same guy, getting a new IP address assigned to him every few weeks or so, which is common practice with consumer ISPs. BaronBifford (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. This will give me something else to cite for reference when I inevitably have to request that a page be protected because of this joker. —DangerousJXD (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this. Again, I really do appreciate somebody taking notice of this matter but please don't create separate pages that will never be used for anything else just to talk to me. Here is fine. I have requested the page be deleted. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Deadpool

Is the stuff in this edit basically OK? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello @73.168.15.161:. (I'm not 100% sure what you mean but I will reply anyway.) That edit is made in good faith but has poor presentation. I'll clean in up now. If I failed to address what you were here for, let me know. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I ended up reverting because after looking it over for several minutes, they weren't actually necessary changes that improved the article. If the editor reinstates the changes, I won't bother arguing with them. Their edit summary in that edit is confusing. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. Sometimes people will just revert you no matter how much sense you make. :\ 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Who says "you need sources" in that situation? "you need sources" is what somebody says when removing content somebody added without a source. They are in the opposite position. It doesn't matter whether users are new or experienced, there's a lot of stubbornness on Wikipedia. Couple stubbornness with noobishness and you've got (among other things) weird edit summaries. Oh well. —DangerousJXD (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly the problem. Thanks for fighting the good fight, as unrewarding as it is. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

IP 208.104.154.180

This IP is apparently completely disinterested in reading WP:ANTAGONIST. Could you help me keep an eye on The Hand (comics)? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Now on my watchlist. These edits happen more often than they should. Lots of things like this are caused by people refusing to read, listen, or communicate. More people watching a page is always a brilliant way to draw attention to something but another thing you could do is add a hidden note if you think it's necessary. Doesn't always stop unproductive edits but always helps to a degree. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Fin Fang Foom

Could you take a look at these edits? It looks like this IP is working hard to do something to improve the article, but may not know how to go about doing it. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up the basic issues but I left the date change as I'm not 100% sure on that and would rather not have to explain things that are minuscule in nature. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Harden

A discussion has started at my talk page with the user adding info to James Harden's article. Just informing you in case you want to weigh in. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Miami Heat colors

Hello, DangerousJXD (talk),

I just wanted to write this message on your talk page about the Miami Heat's colors, per this diff: Technically, having a red background (HTML color code 98002E ) with white text ( FFFFFF ) is color contrast-compliant, per Snook.ca. Also, having a yellow background (HTML color code F9A01B ) with black text ( 061922 ) is also color contrast-compliant, per Snook.ca. However, I understand why you reverted the Miami Heat's colors. You said so yourself in the edit summary: "They look atrocious. It looks like the Cavaliers' colours if anything. It certainly does not look like the Heat's." Well, actually, here's the Miami Heat's Reproduction Guideline Sheet, via NBA Media Central's web site. The Reproduction Guideline Sheet says the Miami Heat's colors are red, yellow and black. I'm not interested in engaging in an edit-war with you over this, nor am I interested in continually reverting edits at Module:Basketball color/data. I just thought you should know my thought process behind why I changed the Miami Heat's colors at the Basketball color module, and also at the Heat's articles/templates. Suffice it to say that I promise to leave the colors alone as they currently are, and to not mess around with the color formatting. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have anything else to say on this matter, or any other colour-related matters. My thoughts are pretty much summed up by my 'atrocious' comment. I suppose I'll add that it's good to hear that last sentence of yours and I appreciate the more thorough explanation. Thanks for seeing my point of view in regard to the Pelicans' colours as well. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ray Allen

He is going to lose those two records.

But you're right, we should wait until the season is over and Steph officially has those two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.124.251 (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@93.129.124.251: I think you have the wrong user. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Don't sweat it though. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed your reply because it's odd formatting and I'm afraid it might mess up the talk page archive bot. I now know what you're referring to but I do not know exactly what you are telling me. I think I understand your edit and comments but I'm not 100% sure. If it's important then feel free to comment again with more specific information. It appears to just be a minor 'for your information' comment though so if you have nothing else to add then it's all good. —DangerousJXD (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the records, which are not held by Allen anymore, should be removed. Simple as that.

Done. —DangerousJXD (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thx for that.

It's all good. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Intellectual property"

Re: If you're going to make that change, make it at the countless other articles that use the term.

I would, but sadly it's too late to stop the rampant corporate propaganda and public gullibility that have made "intellectual property" not only an acceptable substitute for clearer terms like "title" or "franchise" but also a concept actually taken seriously and blindly assumed to make sense. Looks like nobody cares about the other side's explanations of how utterly absurd it is to treat information like physical property (see also The term "intellectual property"). Donjoe (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The Thing

Could you help me keep an eye on this one? Some IP keeps adding some unsourced nonsense to this article. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Already on my watchlist. One could say "that's a doozy". So many things wrong with that. I'll be watching. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears they have moved on to somewhere else: [1] 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

They're just trolling now. I'll be watching. After a brief Google search, it's clear that these claims, like the first claims, are pure hogwash. It's now a certainty that any similar edits by this person to other articles will also be garbage. —DangerousJXD (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

More of the same crap has been happening at Scarlet Witch as well. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. This situation is definitely one of the weirdest things I've seen on Wikipedia. If I were to compile a list of noteworthy vandalism and such, this would be right near the top. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad to have made your day, LOL. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Loving your edit summaries Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

All those hours putting in work at "Edit Summaries R Us" within my brain have paid off. I have earned the title of "Edit Summary God". —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Baksetball Player Positions

We've been discussing this and the way the talk is going everyone prefers using specific positions over general ones. Feel free to chime in if you want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Generic_guards_and_forwards Banan14kab (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am aware but thanks anyway. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Input request

Would you mind to weigh in on this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#First Appearance vs Cameo? Please and thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

retirements?

So your opinion is unless they make an official retirement announcement they arent retired? 95% of players dont make an announcement, they just dont get another job because of injury or because they suck.. Do you suggest leaving them as free agents until they die? Thats just silly. Spanneraol (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Spanneraol, as I clearly stated, it's not about opinions. My personal opinion is summed up with this: I don't care. Retirements for NBA players have been handled this way for as long as I have been here. See Ray Allen for example; I gave up on that article but of note is it has been protected twice for these reasons. If you really care that much, take it up with somebody who cares and try to establish a strong consensus. I act off of the consensus. As far as I know, the consensus is for my edits. If it changes, then the consensus will be for your edits. But again, I don't care much. If you are going to start a discussion or anything, don't drag me into it. (The following is just superfluous information for you shall you want it. Feel free to not read it.) To directly address your second and third sentences: That is just plain false. When players wish to retire from the NBA, they must hand in the appropriate paperwork. Jermaine O'Neal has even said himself he has yet to do it. Because a player is essentially required to officially retire, they simple would not wait until they are 85 years-old and about to die to do that. Players never officially retiring just doesn't happen. I don't know exactly how it all works because I do not work in the NBA but it's super simple: Until a player officially retires, they aren't yet retired. Why would you say a player has retired when they haven't yet? The list of NBA transactions pages contain lists of players who have officially retired. None of them feature Andrew Bynum or anyone else I have named. Bynum, Allen, O'Neal, Carlos Boozer, and Brendan Haywood (the article wrongly says otherwise) all aren't yet retired. Simple as that. I can't stress enough though how much I don't care. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Gorilla Grodd

So that you know, I haven't been able to watch the Gorilla Grodd page due to an impromptu Wiki-break that I had to take after having technology problems. I'm back now, so I will check and see if the persistent trivial non-appearances continued while I was away. Sorry if this is an inconvenience. My absence wasn't planned. DarkKnight2149 21:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I just checked. Fortunately, there wasn't any disruptive editing. I'll continue watching the page. DarkKnight2149 21:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Good to see you back at it. I, of course, have continued to monitor the page. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Picture Updates

Hello! I made the recent change to Paul Pierce's page so that I could catch someone online who knew what they were doing. As you know, a lot of the main pictures on Wiki are outdated (Like Paul Pierce on the wizards or Kevin Garnett on the Celtics). How could I go about updated these in the correct way. I am definitely willing to do the work to update those pictures. People should be able to find the players current team from the first picture provided. Many recently traded players are do NOT have updated pictures. If you could inform me on how to use pictures from the internet that I could then upload into the main picture slot, that would be awesome.

Thanks --RichieConant34 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RichieConant34! I have basic knowledge of this so I suggest posting over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association. To put it in a simple phrase, if you want an image of say Kawhi Leonard in a Spurs uniform, you have to take it yourself or find an image where somebody has taken it themself. Virtually all images of basketball players and other personnel have been taken by somebody who went to a game with a camera. You'll get more information from other users shall you need it at the link I provided above. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank You for the information. RichieConant34 (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It's all good. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Still don't get the punctuation guidelines

Sorry if I made some mistakes. I had been told by another editor that the way I was doing it was correct. I still don't really understand the guideline and I think it looks weird from the link you gave but I'll trust you know what you're doing when you're removing all my edits. Could you explain what is the correct way of doing it?*Treker (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

*Treker, I have explained this to several users already so forgive me for not being up to giving a thorough explaination now. The post I left at your talk page is really all there is to it. WP:MOSLQ is the relevant guideline, Wikipedia uses logical punctuation, putting punctuation outside quotation marks when the quote is a sentence fragment is logical punctuation, and that's it. If you want more information, I have a paragraph on my user page about this which is more conclusive; search for the word "punctuation". The paragraph was directed at a sock/troll so that's why it sounds like it's talking to an individual. This is a common mistake people make, hence why somebody may have told you the opposite of what I'm saying. Non-logical punctuation itself isn't wrong (I myself strongly disagree but I know it's an accepted method of punctuation, just like those in the other boat) but its use on Wikipedia is. I wasn't trying to be "smug" by the way. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry about calling you smug. It was a misunderstanding on my part since I didn't know what Logical punctuation was so I thought you were telling me I was being stupid by being unlogical or something. I reacted to fast and didn't think things trought. I'm sorry, it was immature of me.*Treker (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Television episodes pulled from general rotation

No idea; I assume it's just some bored kid. Trivialist (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(Note.) Safe bet. I'll continue to handle this as I have been doing. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Batman Image

Hi, DangerousJXD. We had a discussion a few months ago about the infobox picture of Batman. The current picture doesn't show his full costume and we agreed the Alex Ross picture wasn't much better. I found this image and would like your opinion on whether or not you think it's a good candidate for the infobox picture. If so, I'll discuss this on the talk page about seeing what other editors think. I just wanted to run this by you first. Drawn by Jim Lee, it's promotional art for Batman: Rebirth #1 (June 2016) and shows the full costume in frontal view. Thanks, DrRC (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey DrRC. I think this new image is, overall, better than the current infobox image at Batman, and I would support this change. The difference in quality and appropriateness for an infobox between these two images isn't as glaring to me as the last discussion, but I would lean towards this new image. (I hate some of Alex Ross' art with a passion.) I will be watching for any discussion you start. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear, DangerousJXD. I started a discussion regarding the image on the Batman talk page. Your input would be great appreciated. Take care, DrRC (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

DangerousJXD, I add a few other options on the talk page, and I'm leaning towards this one, considering how high the quality of this image is. Thanks again for your input. DrRC (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think any one of the proposed images would be a suitable choice for the infobox; they are all the ideal type of image for an infobox and are good quality images. I do not really have a strong opinion on which image out of the ones being suggested so far should be used in the infobox. I will continue to watch the discussion and comment further as necessary. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Jokić

Do not remove power forward from Nikola Jokic. You probably never heard for him before he signed in NBA, but i know him for many years and he also plays power forward, which was actualy his primary position in Europe. There are milion sources with that information, so do not remove that. I also provided a website of ABA league that is reliable, its offcial league website.--Bozalegenda (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Calm down mate. I was handling the article how all NBA player articles have always been handled in regard to position, height, etc.: listing exactly what Basketball-Reference and/or NBA.com list. You didn't need to post here either; I give up easily enough. Further discussion is unnecessary. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Cover of The Dark Knight Returns

Hi, your input in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Essentially, the cover of The Dark Knight Returns has been overused in too many articles and is being considered for deletion in many articles. I for one believe we should keep it in the Batman and The Dark Knight Returns articles. Thanks for your time! DrRC (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, DrRC. I would prefer not to get involved in this particular discussion as it's discussing things that are more outside my knowledge. The Batman image discussions are essentially "which one is the coolest" whereas this is more like "let's delete things for any reason we can find as we delve into the rulebook". I have little knowledge of uploading images and such in general. For what it's worth, I would say keep for The Dark Knight Returns and Batman, remove at the other articles. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That's completely understandable. Thanks for your response. DrRC (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Readers contributions

Hi there, as someone who edits from mobile, this conversation here might be of interest to you. Thanks!--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Clash of Clefairies

Hey there. I noticed that an IP user was trying to say that Clefairy was in the game Clash of Clans, a claim which you reverted. While I do personally think that the Clash game is a bit childish, you might find it helpful to focus on discussing content rather than contributors. Civility's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and calling a user an unfunny "childish ten year-old" just isn't as effective or respectable as noting that the user's claim was unsourced.

It's just a suggestion; I'm not an administrator, and I'm not saying that what you did was wrong, but I've found myself getting hot-tempered at other users and ultimately being viewed negatively as a result. Just thought I'd offer some advice. Cheers! –Matthew - (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP hopper has been trolling all over Wikipedia for months, just so you know. They are a self-admitted troll. They mostly engage in this particular behaviour but they have harassed some other users. I haven't been watching any of their actions directed towards what seem like random editors but I know at least one of the IPs they have used was blocked for their personal attacks on an admin. Of course, several users have reverted their edits and multiple articles have been semi-protected. See the section directly above this one. Anyway, that particular comment is a summary of the whole matter. It is the last comment I intended to make on the matter that isn't a generic revert edit summary. I will continue to revert their trolling and stick to ignoring them until they move on. As for being angered by their trolling, that's not true at all. I see their trolling as the most childish trolling I have ever seen and it thus does not annoy me. If anything, I'm laughing uncontrollably. As for lacking civility, I believe my attitude towards this user has been appropriate and there's nothing outrageously uncivil coming from me. I understand how one should handle such matters and I believe I'm doing fine. They're just a troll. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin: If the user doesn't stop pretty soon, then I'll probably end up taking action. Even though DangerousJXD is doing a good job reverting this user, there is still potential damage to the Wiki due to the possibility of undetected vandalism (esp. if the user uses a new IP address to edit an article of a different topic). My initial thought was to open a sock puppet investigation, but that would probably be pointless since we know it's the same user and they seem to discard their old IP addresses, from what I've seen so far. What I'll probably end up doing is gathering a list of IPs and filing an administrative report to see what next steps need to be taken, such as rangeblocks (for instance). That seemed to help with putting an end to the Nolantron incident.

@DangerousJXD: I'll let you know if anything comes from this, but I understand that you don't really want to be involved in this sort of thing. DarkKnight2149 04:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll certainly monitor anything that you ping me to and provide input if necessary, but yes, I'd rather not be spending too much time at a noticeboard or sockpuppet investigation. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I wasn't aware that this had been going on for so long. –Matthew - (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It's fine. I certainly wouldn't throw around the 'just a punk kid' comment at some random IP that I'm not familiar with. In fact, I'd say my first interactions with the user were far too lenient, especially since they were playing this game with another user, who asked me to intervene. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lisa the Iconoclast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miss Hoover. 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) 12:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability question

This is not directed toward any article you may have written, but I was wondering does playing on the Harlem Globetrotters count as being notable? The team exists strictly for exhibition events which is why I bring this up. The question is more for people who are only known for playing on the Globetrotters. Any help is appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, I personally have no interest in the Harlem Globetrotters and thus any input I provide would be uneducated and unreliable. You may find the answers to any queries related to the Harlem Globetrotters by posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Doom in other media

I have requested that Doctor Doom in other media be semi-protected. In the mean time, I'd suggest opening a sock investigation if you haven't already. DarkKnight2149 05:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, that will stop the troll at that particular article for now. I didn't bother requesting protection myself because they troll many articles and I don't care about them. I'm just reverting a troll. As for opening a sockpuppet investigation, I simply don't get involved in those. With IP hoppers like this one, I feel that any actions taken will be frivolous. Since they don't actually get on my nerves and their edits are incredibly easy to find (too me, they're just making a fool of themself), I'm happy with reverting them until they get bored and move on. After all, they are a ten-year old (copycat games, likes Clash of Clans, immature trolling). You or anybody can handle a sockpuppet investigation if it is deemed necessary to start one. I just prefer not to get involved in things that aren't focusing on the article namespace. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

After doing some thinking, I believe it would probably be better for me to go to WP:ANI (if necessary) rather than opening a sock investigation because the user just seems to discard their IPs after using them for an edit or two (which renders any blocks completely redundant to said IP addresses). I'll probably gather a list of the user's IPs, then take it to ANI, and see if a range block is possible. That seemed to help when I was dealing with the Nolantron debacle. DarkKnight2149 21:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Right now, I'm just going to wait and see if the user stops anytime soon. DarkKnight2149 21:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

So it's Monday where I'm located, and in case you were unaware, they haven't stopped trolling. Now they're moving more towards the 'I'm innocent' approach, and have mixed up their trolling a little. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I'll try to file the report sometime within the next 24 hours. DarkKnight2149 21:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thought I'd note this. Possibly the same user and you may wish to note this in the list you are compiling. It's suspicious. The user rocks up all of a sudden to correct a grammatical error at my user page in a section that mentions trolls. They have two total edits, both to my user page. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Will also note this. The link there is what I was referring to in the below section (them personally attacking admins or something like that; haven't been watching for any of that). —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I haven't been editing this week because I got sick unexpectedly. But on to the business at hand, I will be reporting this troll soon. As for this account, I agree that it definitely seems suspicious. I won't be able to report them with the other IPs since we don't know for certain if it's the same user (at least, not yet). However, I'll keep an eye on their contribution history. DarkKnight2149 22:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I am now completely finished with forming a list of the IP addresses used by the vandal. It includes enough of the IPs in order to determine which IP ranges are problematic. The next step is to file the report, so the process is nearly complete. From here on out, I will simply tag you in any relevant discussions while respecting your reluctance to get too involved in such matters. DarkKnight2149 22:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What is so bad about Visual Editor

	What is so bad about Visual Editor
	What is so wrong with using visual editor? I'm typing everything so it appears correct on the page. Any suggestions on another way of correcting mistakes? Redpanda6633 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Redpanda6633, Visual Editor, in my opinion, is an abomination. Okay I'm exaggerating when I say that but the following is factual: When you edit a basketball player infobox in an article while using Visual Editor, it automatically reorganizes the parameters. It can be seen in this edit of yours. In that edit, you are just changing the height, but see the other changes? Those should not be happening but they are and they need to be reverted. It's an exclusive feature of Visual Editor and is rectified by not using Visual Editor. You appear to have stopped using it so I suggest keeping it that way. It's up to you, but you will annoy editors if you continue to edit basketball infoboxes with Visual Editor. Also, "guard" and "forward" in "point guard", "shooting guard", "small forward", and "power forward" does not need to be capitalized. It's consistent across Wikipedia. When changing links, ensure the changed links still link to the intended article; for example, Power forward is not the article on the basketball position, Power forward (basketball) is. The easiest way to see how to do these sorts of things is to look at other articles in edit mode. The Teahouse is also helpful. Lastly, player height, weight, and positions essentially do not need a specific source backing them up so you don't need to add a reference right next to the position listing. Again, see how all articles handle this. Often times, a link to Basketball-Reference and or NBA.com is at the bottom of the infobox. In terms of sourcing position, height, and weight, essentially, what Basketball-Reference and NBA.com say goes. If you have further queries, I'll attempt to answer them. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Car lists

Somebody seems to hav e taken a chance and created List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com This seems to be against every wikipedia policy - how do we go about deleting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.247.26 (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking me but if you believe that redirect should be deleted, follow the instructions at WP:RFD. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I protected your user page

I just wanted to leave you a message to let you know that I've semi protected your user page indefinitely in order to keep the vandals off of them. If you don't want this protection applied, or if you want it unprotected at a later time, please let me know and I will do so immediately. I hope you have a great rest of your day, and I wish you happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate it. I'll see what happens with that ANI case and go from there. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, I'd like to request unprotection. As I expected, the ANI case will likely end up achieving little and I'd rather not have my user page protected because of a troll. I'll request it be protected again if I see fit. If it does end up being protected again, I won't bother requesting unprotection and will just leave it. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Your user space is completely unprotected as you requested. Can I help you with anything else? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have any other requests but if I need anything else from you specifically, I'll post in this section, provided it hasn't been archived. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

10-4. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait, are you sure you actually unprotected it? It's still saying it's semi-protected when at the edit screen. I don't particularly care whether or not it's protected but I'd rather have it protected because five different trolls are relentlessly targeting it rather than one troll who rocks up sporadically. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Weird, it must not have saved. It is now unprotected. My apologies. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's all good. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ESPN NBA 2K5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ESPN NBA Basketball. 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) 11:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Impersonator directed at you

DangerouslyJXD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is impersonating you, but now blocked by Widr. I've speedy closed this disscussion at ANI. This is only intended to noifiy you about this problem. Cheers, KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, this is a troll's latest strategy. I'm going to need a lot of popcorn or something. Thanks for the notification and I'm perfectly fine with further notifications on related matters from you or anybody else. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Mafia III controversy

We must always post sources from articles? None of them talk about the police (In fact they never do as they never research deeper). Mafia series always had cops responding to traffic laws, react to gangsters and what not. The following video none of them (reaction to gangsters) actually exist and all these were false claim and you refuse this true to be spreaded? This sounds defending a game from having negative reaction. What's your comment? Thekillergreece (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion on this. You added unsourced content, I reverted. You added it back with an unreliable source, I reverted. All content on Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources documenting this so called "controversy", there is no controversy. —DangerousJXD (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

More fun

I think I predicted that the IP hopper was going to go from article to article, and that appears to be true as they are now going to force Scarlet Witch to be semi-protected before long. Since they have been doing this on several articles, I'm sure they have numerous targets to pick from. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

*Sigh* I just added Scarlet Witch and Charles Xavier to my watchlist. And on top of all this, the user is already forging my signature ([2]) and mocking my edits ([3], [4]) on top of creating impersonation accounts of DangerousJXD. Do they actually think they're fooling anyone? "Pacific citation"? Really? They also say that they've hacked an administrator's account and are going to block me, so I guess editing Wikipedia was fun while it lasted... Darkknight2149 04:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

More fun indeed! —DangerousJXD (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure the admin hack claim is false. This is probably not yet a case for WP:LTA, but I am wondering if there is not some good way to put out a general warning with a history of the case that we can easily and quickly point other people to who want to help out? And Scarlet Witch was just indefinitely semi-protected. We can't just semi-protect dozens of articles just because one person with nothing better to do wants to be annoying until they eventually give up. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, them claiming to have hacked admin accounts seems pretty legit to me. I'm incredibly worried. Anyway, I'll just reiterate what I've previously said: I'd appreciate pings to relevant posts but I don't have much knowledge in reporting users (I hadn't even heard of WP:LTA) due to the fact that I focus on editing articles, nor do I have time for their stupid games. Reverting them is all the attention they deserve in my opinion, even though something should be done to put a stop to it. But what exactly can be done? When they decide to stop, it'll be over. Semi-protecting pages and blocking IPs doesn't achieve much; those actions are just formalities. I do believe they'll grow bored and go away eventually. After all, every indication points to them being a child and their whole act is just garbage. It's far easier to just say "troll", but really, trolls that are actually good would be shaking their heads in disgust. A troll's objective is to provoke other internet users into displaying intense anger. If a troll is failing at this basic objective, they aren't a proper troll. They're just embarrassing themself, and I find it hilarious. Only one user has ever shown a hint of anger, but it clearly wasn't genuine. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I haven't filed any more reports, aside from an WP:AN report that informed all of the administrators that my signature was being forged and that, if they received any messages appearing to be from me, to make sure it actually is me. And if the user ever genuinly convinces anyone that they are me, I can easily file a sock investigation on myself and prove otherwise, so they aren't accomplishing anything. Darkknight2149 signature placeholder 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there will be no further activity in this section so this post of mine is to ensure that this section gets archived. I get paranoid if there is something unusual about the last signature, as is the case here where Darkknight2149 isn't using their actual signature. It's unlikely the bot wouldn't have archived the section, but I once had a problem with a particular section not archiving due to another user's unusual signature. Any other comments about the troll should be made in a new section. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome

I'm guessing you were more appreciative of this edit's summary than the edit itself. And while I'm glad you liked it, I hope you know that I just got called out for aggressive and/or snide edit summaries, a complaint about my behavior that I both agree and disagree with. But because of you, I'm never going to learn to stop. That means you'll be to blame when I inevitably revert a bureaucrat, use the summary to call them a "douchebag with a head shaped like an aspirin" or something like that, and get myself banned forever. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I presume you aren't entirely serious. I thanked your edit in part because of its amusing characteristics, but mostly because you were reverting a user who has been trolling for years. I saw the edit made by the IP, thought it probably needed to be reverted, but didn't revert it myself because I wasn't entirely sure. Your summary was helpful in that now I know that if they make other edits similar in nature to this one, I will revert them. Not sure why I doubted whether the edit needed a revert; they've been trolling in several different ways for years. If you are actually worried about potentially getting blocked in the future over an edit summary, I wouldn't worry too much. I don't believe this particular edit summary of yours warranted a warning and users here have said far worse and not been blocked. I wouldn't call anybody a "douchebag with a head shaped like an aspirin" though. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I got in a lot of manure a few months ago when I, not knowing the extent of the long-term attacks, accepted one of that awful person's pending edits then pushed back on an unexplained revert. I think you know this already but in case you didn't, the abuse has gone on for so long that it caused the creation of edit filter, something I'm told happens very rarely in response to one person's behavior. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"GOAT" vandalism

I plan on requesting an edit filter for the addition of "GOAT" or "G.O.A.T." to a sports article. Looks like I'll need diffs to make my case, and I know I've reverted dozens of GOATs, but right now I can only recall this one. I know these highly original and clever edits are popular on basketball articles, so could you let me know of any goat sightings you can remember, or if you revert any in the future. Thanks, Lizard (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Lizard the Wizard, that's not a bad idea. Here's a few: [5], [6], [7]. I have reverted this iconic change probably about ten times and I'll add any others I find. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, the first Scalabrine one doesn't seem to be overt vandalism. Just really unencyclopedic. But feel free to add any others to User:Lizard the Wizard/Goats. Lizard (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

While traversing edit histories for goats, I've come to the conclusion that if we never reverted vandalism, every notable player would be a member of either the Celtics or Lakers. Lizard (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing with a machete?

I am tempted to undo your edits to Tsst, and possibly a few others. I applaud the intention to streamline and condense rampant Plot sections, but hacking out 80+% of a not badly written section is a little beyond the pale. Especially without mentioning it on the Talk page. Tell me why I shouldn't restore the section and start whittling with at least bit of consensus. Dmforcier (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Referring you to WP:PLOT should be enough here. Do you really need me to explain this? —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Might as well. The former plot section at Tsst is a complete joke, plain and simple. If you disagree with that then you are not fit to judge what is and is not a good quality plot section. A great example of how a plot section should be written can be seen at Bart on the Road; it was mostly copyedited by another user, as well as myself. Of course there are various featured articles you can observe as well. Plot sections are supposed to be summaries of the plot, not scene by scene descriptions filled with quotes and trivial observations. Any user who knows even a little about how plot sections should be written will tell you this. My edits are uncontroversial cleaning and one simply does not need to seek consensus for such edits. If you disagree that they are minor copyediting, then you're disagreeing with the plot guidelines because my edits reflect how plot sections should be written according to the guidelines. Provided you've educated yourself by reading WP:PLOT, this should be enough to satisfy you, but I'll go on a little more. Many users have been making edits like mine for years, so I'm not the only one who dares to touch a joke of a plot section. One of the worst plot sections I have had to improve was at The Return of Chef; you simple cannot argue that the old revision should be restored. If you are considering reverting every single edit I have ever made to articles on episodes of television series, then that is plain stupid. Using Mystery of the Urinal Deuce as an example, I performed far more than just plot alterations; I cleaned the plot section, cleaned the lead to have consistent formatting seen throughout most South Park episode articles, added a production section, cleaned the reception section, checked for any inappropriate sections or material (trivia sections, completely unsourced cultural references sections filled with dribble, unneeded links, etc.), and checked the page history and talk page for any major conversations or anything else that I should be aware of. All my edits are uncontroversial copyediting; nobody with sense finds copyediting controversial. At first glance, the removal of a large amount of content may appear drastic, but upon further inspection, it becomes apparent that the removed content never should have been in the article in the first place. Most poorly written plot sections are the way they are because nobody watches these pages for unproductive drive-by IPs that bloat plot sections. Often times, the plot of an article from a years-old revision is superior to the current revision because it was first written when more experienced editors were around to monitor it and there has not yet been years of random IPs constantly expanding it. The only exception is if an editor like myself has copyedited it and watches it from then on. It's easy to find articles where this has happened. You can see similar happenings at the talk pages of some articles; often times, talk pages are used in violation of WP:FORUM. In short, my edits are uncontroversial and you shouldn't have a problem with them. I trust you won't interpret this lengthy post as an angry one. I have no animosity towards you. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Self-important much? You are clearly right. Everyone that disagrees with you is an idiot. I just don't have the energy right now to edit war, but I'm still here and I'm still watching. Dmforcier (talk)

I can't control how you interpret my comments. I will say this though, I am about as far away from thinking like that as it gets, and if you would have thoroughly read the above post without assuming I think that way, you wouldn't have made that comment. The main purpose of this post is to ensure proper archiving. —DangerousJXD (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Marge vs. the Monorail

I don't want to argue the point. Someone else added the reference to Mr. Burns' escape being a spoof of the 1989 Batman movie. All I did was try to help that contributor by adding references. If you're going to keep reverting, it's not worth the time and effort. Maybe you'd like to help by providing some references of which you approve? Billmckern (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Billmckern, I spent several minutes looking and couldn't find anything. When that's the case, it usually means the content does not belong in the article, even if it's undeniably factual. If no reliable sources can be located, the content being in the article constitutes original research. —DangerousJXD (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Common sense really?

Then explain the dozens of times that character references appear in other articles regardless of whether they appear in the form of media or not. Characters are referenced in the MCU movies all the time without them actually appearing, and trivial points like the Black Cat reference in MVC3 has appeared numerous times to showcase fun bits of information or the character's overall exposure to media. So excuse me if I don't see the "common sense" in a heavily contradicted scenario.

I'll just address the most glaring comment in your post here; other editors can give you more information if you really need it. I find it hard to believe that you are seeing dozens of articles with content regarding so-called "non-appearances". The general consensus is that this sort of content is inappropriate for inclusion in articles, and if you really are seeing this sort of content regularly, then I'd be interested in seeing some examples. Either way, this guideline is relevant. I know of three other users who revert these sorts of additions on the spot, with a memorable situation being at Ace the Bat-Hound; it involved the appearance of a dog bowl in a video game. In short, the general consensus is that content describing "non-appearances" is inappropriate. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DangerousJXD. 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)

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)