User talk:Bonusballs

Welcome!

Hello, Bonusballs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! HMR 17:59, 04 May 2009 (UTC)

ibcteam

I didn't 'spam' the Hemorrhoid page. My site contains information and treatments for hemorrhoid; thus, it deserves a spot on Wikipedia's 'external links'. My website attempts to inform and help people who have hemorrhoids; however, it is a labor of love and I am not paid to run it, so I try to recoup my expenses however I can. I do not appreciate the message, however.

Ibcteam (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

sky hd+

No idea why that IP editor is obessed with adding "CNN might have a channel at some time maybe sorta in the future" but good job keeping it off the page. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Now 73

Hi. Regarding Now 73 and its availability on Napster, the point is that that fact is not notable unless it is sourced in third-party reliable sources. I'm sure I can verify the same thing that you found out, but again it is not really notable for inclusion. The Now! series is, of course, notable. It has been around for 25+ years and each now volume sells extremely well. Additional facts, such as chart positions, total units sold, for these volumes can usually be properly sourced and are suitable for inclusion in the article when they are. You may or may not agree, but that is just my reasoning. --Wolfer68 (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my previous point. If not being available on Napster is notable, there should be some reliable third-party source to back it up. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Now73-napster-copy.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Now73-napster-copy.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Now73-napster-playlist.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Now73-napster-playlist.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

List of HD channels on sky+ HD

Hi There,

Can you not undo the redirection if you feel the article warrents staying please state the reasons for it i nlist of hd channels in the uk, currently the list is the same as list of channel in sky digital and list of hd channel in the uk, it provides nothing extra and it not notable enough to be on it own, it either redirects to one of the ones above but since it focusing on hd channels it best for the hd channels in uk article. all the article is doign is collecting the same information on the baove article so is dublicate and apart fromt eh stuff your removed which was directly advertising it still is not required. instead of putting it for deletion where all information that mgith be useful gets deleted redirection is the best options i rather nto put it up for AFD. i am not acting out of my believes or so on i am jsut following guidleines for wikipedia which state dublicate or near dublicates article should be merged or deleted--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Vrillon hoax incident

I've enjoyed your often helpful contributions to this article in the past and I think it would be very useful if you could offer your opinion on the re-naming 'thing'. Thanks for helping to contribute positively to the encyclopedia with your efforts! cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

PAL

Hey, sorry about that. I just had it fixed in my mind that 576i was 16:9 and 480i was 4:3

-Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackdyson (talk • contribs) 12:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

BT Vision

I believe to add a balanced section regarding the Powerline/Comtrend adaptors its important to mention the facts..which are:

1) The adaptors dont meet EMC regulations

2) The adaptors DO cause interference.

We have to mention facts only I agree, but adding a comment from OfCOM: Ofcom concludes that "there does not at present appear to be significant public harm arising from this situation.",is just an opinion not a fact (and in any case whats "harm" - Non-Compliance is surely Non-Compliance??); the reason being that there are many people who have only recently been able to identify the interference and I your edit removes my EMC test results and links to the audio which would enable identification.

Glowplug1 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, read your message. Yes more views would be good, though I dont think that mere mortals like ourselves can compete with people such as EurIng Keith Armstrong, C.Eng, MIET, MIEEE.

I think it would be wrong to allow opinions of people without comparable experience and qualifications to allow/disallow The COMTREND interference issues.

Regards, Steve.

Glowplug1 (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that you have now removed any mention of interference cause by BT Vision Powerline adaptors...despite more developments: http://www.rsgb.org.uk/plt/docs/ofcom_letter.pdf

I find your editing un-professional and suspect and I intend to bring this matter to the attention of wiki

Glowplug1 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Substitute templates

Please remember to substitute templates e.g. {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} rather than {{uw-vandalism3}}. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User warnings

Hi! Giving users loads of vandalism warnings at once (As you did here) isn't really helpful. It's far more constructive to give one warning after reverting their vandalism (In some cases you can give an only warning when vandalism is extream). Once they have vandalised after their final (level 4) or only warning, you need to report them at WP:AIV! Thanks! Cannonbolt2 (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject British TV channels

I've noticed that your not a member of WikiProject British TV channels, perhaps you would consider joining? - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop it!

Keep out of editing Nick Jr. (UK & Ireland) please you or you'll have to be blocked.

That's it

You're an evil liar and I'm going to kill you! (I won't really, I just want to teach you a lesson)

Nickelodeon HD

I have switched this to just a redirect to the main network. As it is only a simulcast network there is no need for a separate article devoted to a duplicative HD feed, and I have reformed the writing as such. Nate • (chatter) 04:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

substituting warning templates

Hi, thanks for your efforts in countering vandalism. I have noted that you have been using the {{uw-vandal'''X'''}} template in your warnings. Please note that you should be using the template {{subst:uw-vandal'''X'''}} for technical reasons that I personally do not understand (there is likely a good explanation somewhere... and it should be noted that not all templates need to be subst'ed!) Again thanks for the work you do, and if you could use the correct template wording from now on that would be even better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

86.41.28.194

I turned that range block back on for another month. Please let me know (or post at AIV) if he hops into one of the other ranges associated with that vandal. Kuru (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Courtney

Thanks for finding that ref, it enabled me to locate him and find out how his name is actually spelled. I've now added it correctly and tidied up the mess which was made by the ip. Oh, and he was 81. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

KidsCo

You've made a number of reverts, claiming vandalism, in this and this. I don't see how you the edits you reverted constituted vandalism; they look like unsourced additions, sure, but why would that be vandalism? Wikipedia:Vandalism states there must be "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," and I don't see any deliberate attempt. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message - basically I believe they're vandalism because they're part of a systematic and sustained group of edits by one or two editors which have basically been spraying incorrect additions across a range of children's TV articles. (Activity which has been going on for years, in fact.) If you look at the edits made by the IP users in question you'll see that they forms part of a pattern - focusing on the same few articles, adding the same (obscure) TV shows, etc. It's very definitely vandalism as none of the edits are sourced or factual. The editors making these changes don't respond to discussion, don't engage on talk pages, and keep going even after multiple blocks and warnings. If there were any legitimacy in the information being added that would be one thing, but this isn't even misguided, it's systematic and deliberate. Bonusballs (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Looking at the history, I figured there was something like that going on; I also asked User:Rohnjones, who had blocked them earlier, and I reckon they'll say the same thing. Some people don't learn, do they. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's such a shame - I can only hope that one day they'll use that enthusiasm and knowledge of Wiki for better, more useful purposes. Bonusballs (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Scottie McClue

Im a reviewer and somebody tried to edit the article Scottie McClue and I am just asking, what made you put that COI template on the page.Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 01:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Answer on my talkpage, Thanks. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 01:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you bonusballs for explaining the situation from your point of view. I have no direct connection with any of the subjects which appear to make you so anxious but do see them as important media figures and I find it suspicious when one party because of their administrator status and early warning system who has clearly 'vandalised' this piece in the past and attempted to 'do the subjects down' on a number of occasions with comments like 'is this Mr Lamont trying to edit his piece' show a sense of paranoia against at least one of the the subjects. I do not know whether this person reads Wikipedia or is aware that this piece exists but it is a clear example of JPS setting himself up as the gatekeeper when he has clearly been guilty of direct 'vandalism' in the past

Please note that this page is regularly edited by an IP address connected to UTV. The JPStalk to me 09:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

but is also using his administrative powers to block editing as he has done many times in the past well outwith the spirit of Wikipedia. I am sure you can well see why people's suspicions are aroused with regard to JPS's motives and his connections. If it makes JPS feel better then why not go for full protection and prevent any other parties from editing the articles at any time in the future leaving them stuck in time. Then at least JPS can sport a self-congratulatory tone that he is 'powerful' on Wiki and can stop anyone editing with a click of his 'autoprotect' button. It may make a mockery of Wikipedia but am sure it will not make one jot or scintilla of difference to any of the subjects which he so preciously guards from having any other input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havengore (talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

==Template:Children's channels in UK & Ireland==

Thanks for correcting my point there, i was on auto-pilot. Forgot that the Beeb had axed it's slots on the network Wilbur2012(talk) 16:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilbur2012 (talk • contribs)

testing channels

hey no problem revertign ym edits as yoru correct the chanenls are but the person who posted original posted a transponder that doesnt exist and when i scanned the channels didnt exist either, but the transponder you have posted is correct just looks bad on me you reverting ym edit :P--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on Nickelodeon?

I found that the edit summary you gave when reverting me was insufficient. Could you please explain it clearer so I can understand? Because actually the EPG does say that Nicktoons Replay ends at 6:55PM. EpicWikipedian (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I just looked on Sky in the UK and it says 18.58, like it always has done. I can't see anywhere that says 18.55 so I assumed that you had made a mistake. If you have a better source than the channel itself, by all means provide a link - that's what Wikipedia is all about. :) Bonusballs (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited TVNZ 6, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortysomething (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland)

Do you know who keeps adding the stuff like iCarly month and Victorious month?3 They're fake and someone keeps adding stuff like that :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.76.62 (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a random vandal - they add a lot of similar fake stuff to Disney articles too. Bonusballs (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Persistent IP-hopping vandal

Thanks for your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism about 86.44.207.99. It is, as you no doubt realise, very difficult to do much about this sort of long-term IP-hopping vandalism. I have blocked the IP you reported, but of course that won't achieve much. I have placed a couple of range blocks on the ranges of IP addresses used, but unfortunately there is a significant amount of perfectly legitimate editing from those ranges, so I have blocked them only for a few hours, which won't do much. I have also semi-protected Template:Children's channels in UK & Ireland and KidsCo, which were the two pages I found that pass both the tests (1) subject to persistent and frequent vandalism over a long period, and (2) vandalism still taking place recently. That should help a little, but, as you know, there are many other pages affected. Please feel welcome to contact me on my talk page about this, and I will do what I can, though I'm afraid that won't be much. In particular, if you know of any other pages that pass the two tests I have mentioned, and I will consider protecting them. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	In recognition and appreciation of your hard work in the endless pursuit of an IP hopping vandal. Well done.  ⊃°HotCrocodile...... + 23:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of rollback

You recently reverted this edit as WP:Vandalism. It's not at all clear that that fits the definition of vandalism and your use of rollback appears to be inappropriate. Is there something here I'm not seeing? Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! If you have a look at the history of that article you'll see that it has been plagued for the last few years by the constant addition of completely made-up or extinct television channels, these edits all having been made by the same editor (or via the same IP address pool). I and other editors have been reverting this as vandalism on sight as it's clearly the work of a lone, determined individual. That article was semi-protected as a result of such abuse, which solved the problem for a while, but the repetition of the same editors from a new user account User:Dylan fagan signalled a further push by this prolific wiki vandal. Fundamentally it's the repeated addition of errors into articles, despite all previous requests to stop, warnings, and blocks. There's a fuller explanation and more examples at the page User:GMTV Chart Show which details the ongoing sockpuppeting and vandalism, which has been occuring for several years now. Bonusballs (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but they don't seem like fictional additions. This seems like addition of real shows. Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That edit is an excellent example. You'll see that they've added "TBA 2012 (New)" as a launch date, and then added a random list of real shows as "Programmes from 2012". Basically this is complete fiction. This channel closed well over a decade ago - it's not coming back, and the only person who thinks it is is this editor. Those "2012" programmes may be real but they have no relation to a channel that closed down in 1998 - most of them had not even been made when the channel was closed. No sources support these persistent and long-running errors which they continue to spray across any page even slightly related to the topic. Bonusballs (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a case for SPI and page protection. I'll take care of the latter. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Sock Monster

Gosh, this seems to be quite endemic. I hadn't realised it was that bad. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's quite the horror show, isn't it.. Bonusballs (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I added one someone told me about earlier from where similar stuff has been happening, but you might want to check it out in case they're not the same. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just caught another one. If you haven't done so already, it might be worth filing a request for a sockpuppet investigation as his activity is becoming quite disruptive now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. One of the IP address ranges has already been blocked tempoarily but this is another pool from the same ISP (Eircom in Dublin). Bonusballs (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. When you recently edited The Children's Channel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Family Channel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Continued Disruption

You know the guy that you warned (86.44.197.68)? Well, he decided to disrupt Tai Chi Chasers. He is also continuing to edit other pages (such as Toon City). You can see them on his contributions page. Just a heads-up. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your reverts

We use the US website because these shows are produced in the USA. Its standard for tv shows, if the show is produced in New Zeland we give the NZ site as the official site, this is not the place to fight against systemic bias, which clearly does exist on wikipedia. Inconsistencies of thiss ort are extremely annoying and do not help the reader. If you want to change what we do on all tv series on wikipedia reverting me is not the way to do it. SympatheticIsolation (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Your choice - it seems inconsistent that in one article you remove a link [[1]] on the basis that it is a US-only website for a channel which just happens to broadcast the show, yet in the majority of other cases you add US-only links in preference to the official worldwide sites many of which feature in the shows own end credits - surely it can't get more official than that. Still, your call, it obviously matters to you more. Best of luck. Bonusballs (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The Children's Channel

Breathe easy on this one for awhile; I was successful on getting a year semi-protect on this one. Just too much going on to keep up the whack-a-mole on the IPs for too much longer. Nate • (chatter) 03:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good news! Bonusballs (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Thanks for weighing in. This fellow just doesn't seem to want to get the message. And, while the particular edits in question are mostly neutral, given any sort of room on his leash he'd begin to muck things up again. His bad editing is an insidious thing! Thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now I see that the edit you reverted was, in fact, wrong. JohnInDC (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Very strange pattern of editing - seems like an odd focus on US-centric articles given that the editor is based in Ireland. Bonusballs (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and when he adds a country of origin to a series it's almost always Canada. Go figure! JohnInDC (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:90.216.171.243

I would just like to say very nice quick catch with User_talk:90.216.171.243! Keep up the good work! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

KidsCo Productions

Not a hoax, and there is an article about them. I've deleted the 'Productions' article as not improving on the original. Peridon (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning 4im

Hello, I'm Citrusbowler. I wanted to let you know that I had altered a warning template you had placed to say "only" warning. In the future if you are giving a level 4 warning, affix an -im so it says "only" (Example:{{subst:uw-vandalism4im|''PageName''}}). Thanks! Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 20:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not really necessary. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism at Nickelodeon Articles

Hello, I'm ‎Jockzain. Thank you for reverting vandalism at those articles. I think the IP user you are dealing with has already been blocked for 2 year with slightly different IP 89.100.93.190 and also has this one 89.100.131.20 doing same vandalism and not listening to anyone. Regrads--Jockzain (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem! I'm pretty sure they're the same editor that has been vandalising for some years over at 79.97.153.17 as well. Bonusballs (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

89.100.130.154 again vandalising the articles, with giving excuse that his uncle was incharge of these events so he knows everything about them.--Jockzain (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

GMTV Chart Show

Adding the Sock warning template here was very helpful. Thanks for doing that! :) Filed an AIV report for the disruptions at Scaredy Squirrel. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! This particular editor has been at it for years and sadly still shows no sign of stopping - you can almost guarantee that any edit to a children's article from 86.41.x, 86.42.x or 86.44.x is more nonsense from this guy. Bonusballs (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this. I will never understand why they expend the effort on something as fruitless as vandalizing Wikipedia. It's like walking into an open home, ransacking it, and then walking away pleased at yourself for being so cunning. I'm of the opinion that all articles related to children's TV and film should be semi-protected indefinitely, or, any IP edits must be accompanied by a $5 security deposit. Proceeds will be distributed to users who combat vandalism. Here's another one for your collection from 86.44.x: 86.44.207.194. There've only been a few edits from this IP thus far. I know you've considered rangeblocks, has that done anything? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's another: 86.44.199.87. Do you want me to do anything specific when I encounter these, rather than dumping them in your lap? Should I tag them with {{ipsock|GMTV Chart Show|blocked=no}} (I can't block people) or report 'em somewhere? Happy to help out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not an admin either so I can't block people either - you're right that some of the admins did try a range block last year but I think they were reluctant to keep it up as it was basically covering almost all users of one ISP in a certain city. It stops the vandalism stone dead but unfortunately prevents a larger number of legitimate edits from normal people too. Tagging any that you see is certainly always helpful - you can say "blocked=yes" because that isn't actually blocking anything, it's just flagging that the main sockpuppet account (GMTV Chart Show) is blocked, which it is. I may re-report this case to see if the admins have any other ideas, as the problem clearly isn't going away any time soon. Bonusballs (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, cool, I'll be happy to help out! If I see any of these, I'll flag 'em. It is somewhat ridiculous that nothing can be done about this. You'd think Wikipedia is big enough to have a sit-down with the ISP or something. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Channel 4 programming may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * ''[[Murun Buchstansangur]]'' (
• |title=C4 accused of falsifying data in documentary on climate change - Independent Online Edition > Media |accessdate=2007-05-20 | work=The Independent | location=London | first=Steve | last=Connor |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Troublesome IP

The IP 50.151.44.115 vandalized Toonzai. I had to revert it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

82.24.188.86

Hello, Bonusballs. Thanks for your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism about the IP address 82.24.188.86 I see that the problem has been going on for a year, and I can't imagine why nobody has done anything about it before. I have blocked the IP address for a week, but if you see any more of the same when the week is up, please drop a note on my talk page, and I will consider blocking for significantly longer. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Blocked for a year. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of talk page section

This edit removes some talk page posts of yours, which is something I would not normally do, but under the circumstances I thought it better to just remove the whole section. If you disagree, then please revert my edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for undoing the changes on List of programs broadcast by Qubo. I think I know who was responsible for vandalizing "List of programs broadcast by Qubo" section by putting PBS shows on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbears22 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Cartoonito

Thanks for the revert. I was kindof on automatic :P Benboy00 (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comments

It looks like you've removed a number of talk page comments by another user, without explanation. Those I have reviewed have not been vandalism, personal attacks, or off-topic (although the intent of the requests are certainly not clear). According to WP:TPO, those are largely the reasons for the outright removal of another user's comment, and the page goes on to say that if someone objects, you should stop. I am objecting, so please stop. If you insist on continuing, a detailed edit summary is what I insist upon in return.--~TPW 15:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello TPW. Thanks for your comment. You may not be aware of the situation with these specific articles and this specific editor, a long-running sockpuppet (of some 7 years standing) who repeatedly makes disruptive edits (insertion of errors, hoaxes, and bogus claims) into articles on a repeated basis. The talk page archives of Talk:The Children's Channel and Talk:Pop (UK TV channel) in particular are littered with these repeated nonsense requests. Since the edits are from a user whose primary sock account has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia, it is not at all clear what benefit their momentarily unfiltered 'contributions' add to the encyclopaedia, or why you seem to 'insist' that their disruptive editing should continue to be tolerated or even recognised, in contrast to the policies set out at WP:RBI and WP:DENY. Nevertheless, you asked for an explanation - and this is why I reverted what I did. Obviously, if you disagree, you are certainly most welcome to lend a hand in addressing this user's non-stop and repeated vandalism. The more help, the better. Bonusballs (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

GMTV

Hey BB, I found another sock IP, 86.41.43.247. I've tagged the IP on the talk page. Do you typically report these each time at SPI, or are you just collecting them for a bulk report? I notice that the last report was in July 2013. In the interim, I'll report it to AIV. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! To be honest I'm never really quite sure what to do about these. I usually tag the talk pages and revert their edits, reporting to AIV if they persist on the same IP address - but usually they keep changing addresses faster than that anyway. The whole range was blocked for a while after the last SPI report, that really did seem to stop the problem, but of course affects legitimate users in that range as well. Have reported this one to AIV again as they've just unleashed a fresh wave of errors across a number of articles… Just no fun at all.. Bonusballs (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That IP from Lego City

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I reported the IP who kept adding the TV show thing to Lego City and you suspect is a sockpuppet, to the WP:AIV, so hopefully they will be blocked on the basis of their false edits. Maybe the socking issue will then be investigated. Anyway, thanks, DarkToonLink 09:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Next time, can you please capitalize when you file a report? The report names are case sensitive. --Rschen7754 21:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Guessing Game!

I am the brand new owner of Wikipedia! Now it is time for a guessing game! What is my favourite number? IS it 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7? If you get it right, you live, if you don't, I shall terminate your account or you will have to give me your password! 2013 Owner (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Nick Jr. (UK and Ireland) 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. TigerShark (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. I wouldn't have called it "edit warring". JamesBWatson (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat taken aback that reverting obvious and repeated vandalism of an article (addition of wilfully incorrect content) is considered to be edit warring. Keeping that kind of vandalism at bay is hard enough as it is without this kind of treatment. Bonusballs (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you feel that this is an example of you reverting vandalism [2]? If so, can you please explain why you believe it was obvious vandalism? TigerShark (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I certainly do. That section of the article is a list of "current programmes" broadcast on that television channel. The material inserted by the IP editor is not a television show, is not shown on this channel, is dated in the future (2014, with no source provided to substantiate any suggestion that it may ever BE a "current" show in the future), and is one of a number of similar and long-running pattern of edits made to this page either from that specific IP address or that IP range over the last few months, where all previous warnings and blocks have been ignored. It is unequivocally the exact type of pernicious long-term vandalism that subtly corrodes the integrity of Wikipedia articles and which AIV and SPI seem unable to address. Bonusballs (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If adding it as a current show is obvious vandalism, why is it listed as a show on the Nick Jr. website [3]? TigerShark (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, if it is not a current show on the channel, why is it listed at 8am (and 8:30am) tomorrow morning? [4] TigerShark (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the article is about "Nick Jr (UK & Ireland)" and the website you reference is for the Nick Jr channel in the United States of America. They are not the same country, and not the same thing. Bonusballs (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, so have you discussed that with the other user? Or have you just issued them with vandalism warnings and reverted their edits ? Is it possible that the other user has made a genuine mistake here, and nobody has properly discussed it with them? Is it possible that those shows could actually be coming to the Uk channel in 2014? TigerShark (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The point has been repeatedly made in the reversions that the programmes being added are 'not shown in this country' or are in error. The messages on the user's talk page explicitly say "if you believe that this information is correct, please discuss on the talk page". They have not done so. Can I reiterate that that IP, and that IP range, is repeatedly adding all manner of show names to this list - for example [[5]] mentioning 'Sarah & Duck', a show screened on the BBC's CBeebies channel, a direct rival to Nick Jr UK - so no possibility WHATSOEVER that the show will EVER be screened on the channel as the IP editor claims. How about this edit [[6]] adding "Nick Jr Jungle", another seemingly fictitious show. Perhaps this edit [[7]] adding "Zou", a programme which in the UK is screened on the Disney Junior channel, again another direct rival to Nick Jr UK, and again no possibility whatsoever that the information being added is correct. Bonusballs (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You claim that Nick Jnr would never show a CBeebies show, but (in the US) they show Mike the Knight (which is also shown on CBeebies). Are you absolutely sure you are right about this, and all the other shows? TigerShark (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely sure. CBeebies in the UK does not allow commercial rivals in the same country to show the same programmes as it does. Like most British TV channels its programmes are market-exclusive. And can I reiterate that what is shown on Nick Jr in the US is not the issue - the UK channel is different. A different network in a different country. It shows similar programmes, but not exactly the same ones. You can't even give the IP editor the credit for being confused about the countries because 'Sarah & Duck' and 'Zou' are not shown on Nick Jr in the US either, they're shown on PBS and Disney Junior. Why, exactly, would an IP address from a New York ISP be repeatedly inserting errors into three Wikipedia articles about British television channels, and absolutely nothing else? They won't respond to discussion or warnings and persist despite being blocked. What other conclusion is there? Bonusballs (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you are absolutely sure? That they won't be shown and that the user is even adding fictitious shows like Nick Jr Jungle? TigerShark (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I am absolutely sure. I would not be reverting their edits, warning them or reporting them to AIV if I were in any doubt whatsoever. Bonusballs (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

So, if you are absolutely sure that there is not a show called Nick Jr Jungle, and that the other user was committing vandalism when they added it, why is it listed as a show on the (UK) website? [8] TigerShark (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That appears to be a list of games. There's definitely no TV show broadcast under that name. Bonusballs (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is listed under "Shows" on the UK website. Even if we assume that you are right and their website is wrong, is it clearly vandalism for somebody to add it to the Wikipedia article (given that it is listed on the Nick Jr website as a show)? TigerShark (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that nothing else they have added to any article has been remotely correct, and that their remaining edits only damaged articles by removing formatting and joining unrelated lists together into one unsorted mess? No, it appears to be a part of a consistent pattern of abusive behaviour which resumes immediately after a block for the same activity. If they were misjudged then they'd have explained themselves or joined the discussion by now. If they've got lucky by adding something that appears plausible to editors outside the country to which the article relates, then good for them, but if you consider that user's behaviour as a whole - as I have - I don't think you can come to any conclusion other than WP:DUCK. Bonusballs (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding incorrect information is not vandalism, intentionally adding incorrect information is. To be honest, I have not seen anything here which convinces me that the this is a simple case of vandalism and of you reverting vandalism. All of the shows either exist (or are, at least, listed as shows on the Nick Jnr websites), even though you were sure that "Peter Rabbit" and "Nick Jnr Jungle" were made up by the IP. As for the other shows, it all seems to hinge on your belief that you know which shows could possibly be upcoming on Nick Jnr, and also that any possible mistake regarding country differences is clear vandalism. Even if you are right and the other person is wrong, then that doesn't automatically make the other person a vandal. I have looked at your talk page interactions, and edit summary interactions and I can see little, if any, discussion (including any discussion on possible confusion between shows in different countries, as you claimed). The vast majority of what I can see is reverts and you issuing vandalism warnings. I protected the two articles to give everyone a breather. I wonder if you might consider taking the time to open a discussion with the IP, and see if any of this can be sorted between you. TigerShark (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I maintain that WP:DUCK applies, but sure, why not, let's see if they'll sit down for tea and cakes and discuss the matter. I freely admit that I am sceptical, and I think your optimism is misplaced, frankly, but by all means let's give it a go. Bonusballs (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks also for taking the time to go through it with me today. Good luck with the discussion! :) TigerShark (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

FanforClarl aka Brightify

Hey BB, just keeping you apprised that sock operator Brightify aka FanforClarl has been very active of late. I believe he is probably better referenced as FanforClarl, as that account has an SPI archive, and Brightify does not. Here's one of the recent sock reports, which was eventually linked back to FanforClarl. This also revealed HoshiNoKaabi2000 and Orginal (sic) to be socks of FanforClarl, along with WangsDaringsFun, and others. I also believe one of the sock accounts related to user "Orginal" took credit for being GMTV Chart Show, thought I don't think that was ever proven by CheckUser. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's interesting - thanks. I don't think Unorginal/Hoshi is actually GMTV Chart Show, the styles and patterns of vandalism are completely different. I suspect they just said that to try to fox any investigations. Bonusballs (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have checked the contributions of Hoshi an Clarl, and I don't think they are the same people, Hoshi is more into editing kids TV articles, and Clarl is more into Kids Bop. TDFan2006 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi @TDFan2006:, the link between Hoshi and Clarl was confirmed here (see very bottom). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about the witch.

Hey, don't worry about the witch. I've got a sweet bomb shelter stocked with gourmet food, flame throwers and holy water. You're welcome to use it for as long as you need. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Very kind of you, thanks very much. :) Bonusballs (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN/I - Proposed ban - FanforClarl

Hiya, well, it pains me to say it, because I never wanted to give this kid extra negative attention, but I am proposing a community ban of sockjobber FanforClarl. Details at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Ban proposal - FanforClarl. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nick Jr. UK and Ireland

Don't be removing redirects. The article is a whole bunch of unsourced garbage. Pure fancruft. Also as stated at WP:NOTTVGUIDE lists of programs are discouraged. If you want to start the article again, add reliable sources. If you keep on reverting my edits, I will report you for edit warring. I looked at you history, and you have been having an edit war with the same article. Nick Jr. is already covered on the Nickelodeon UK page. Finealt (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Your tone and accusations are inappropriate and unbecoming. As I have already mentioned, you are making wholesale deletions across whole swathes of content on Wikipedia with no discussion or consensus. Your assumptions (including the amazing one that there is no such channel as Nickelodeon Switzerland, because viewers in that country obviously just watch the French and German channels) are not just misguided, they are hopelessly and hilariously wrong. Such assumptions are not a sound basis for the edits which you are making. As I said elsewhere, I urge you to DISCUSS these edits properly before removing accurate and uncontested content wholesale. And you can park your threats at the door because they don't impress me. Bonusballs (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Such content is considered cruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought or a television guide. At least add sources to the channel. If it doesn't have a website; then it doesn't exist. Finealt (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to discuss your proposed changes before making them. WP:BRD entitles you to be bold, but if the community reverts your changes you need to respect that and DISCUSS IT PROPERLY like everyone else does. And websites exist for all the channels whose articles you are deleting. You can find links to them in the articles themselves. The fact that you even say that again casts doubt on your suitability to make such fundamental decisions about these articles. Can I say it again - please DISCUSS your changes and respect that your opinion is not the only one. Bonusballs (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What you're adding is a bunch of ****. I am merging the articles to make it easier to navigate. All the channels air the same programs. Finealt (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You are MATERIALLY mistaken and wrong in that. Please DISCUSS your changes so that you can discover more about the channels whose content you profess to be expert in. Your actions are indistinguishable from vandalism. I'm sure they're well intentioned but you must respect the wider Wikipedia community. Please DISCUSS your edits in the places where that discussion belongs - on each article's talk page. Bonusballs (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2014 (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:Bonusballs reported by User:Finealt (Result: ). Thank you. Finealt (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop undoing my edits.

Why do you keep removing Matt Lucas, Metallica, and Skins references and replacing them? DanFlippingDoherty (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Matt Lucas, Metallica, and Skins (a sexually explicit programme not shown on any Children's TV channel) were not and have never been nominated in the kids' awards ceremonies that you keep spraying your vandalism over. Bonusballs (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying Matt Lucas and Metallica are sexually explicit as well?DanFlippingDoherty (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you undid an amendment of an edit I had made as well, so I undid it again, and returned the citation to the page. DanFlippingDoherty (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You've been vandalising the same articles in the same way for several years, and been extensively blocked because of it - no-one is fooled. Bonusballs (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

MythBusters

The discussion about Buster's inclusion is here --AussieLegend (✉) 14:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I probably should point out that discussion is still underway. Jojhutton is just trying to implement changes before the discussion has concluded, so feel free to ad your thoughts. Everyone is welcome. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop calling them pop, they're thrash metal

Would Metallica or Slayer fans be happy if you called them pop? No, I guess. So why McFly?NinjaBinga (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As an indefinitely blocked user on your other accounts, what you have to say is unfortunately not relevant, and since almost all of your edits are pure vandalism, whatever point you MIGHT have about McFly being a hardcore thrash metal band (yuh, right) is lost in the noise. Bonusballs (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Finealt

Please check out Randixx (talk · contribs); I've started an SPI against Finealt as their editing patterns and removals of information closely resemble each other. Nate • (chatter) 06:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this the guy who was blanking Nick Jr. (UK and Ireland) and posting "F**K YOU!" to certain people? The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the same editor - same target articles, same pattern of behaviour. WP:DUCK must apply, surely. Bonusballs (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Binksternet, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. —Mrschimpf 05:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)