Hello 68.37.29.229. Although your work in warning users is appreciated, being abruptly "rude" as you were here is not usually protocol on Wikipedia. He has received warnings, one by me, that firmly, but nicely explain his wrongdoing, which is the proper protocol. Although he has been warned about other things, it seemed to be his first time being warned about removing content. Next time, please start off with a level 1 generic warning and if he continues to do it after you've given him a level 4 warning then report him at an appropriate noticeboard. Also, don't worry, all Wikipedia content is saved under the page's history and can be restored with the click of a button by a Wikipedia user. I will check the page to see if it is still missing, and if it is, I'll re-add the information. Thank you. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Below is an example of a level 1 generic warning about page blanking:

" Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you."

Just noticed on the page history for The Real Housewives of New Jersey, in your edit summary, you referred to Jerems45 as a "snot-nosed child". That sort of behavior is not tolerated in any way on Wikipedia and I expect not to see you do it again. The policy of Wikipedia is to "comment on content, not on the contributor". If you have questions, please read WP:NPA. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way were they used for each show or season? Can you explain? Nightscream (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for noticing the problems and I am sorry for resorting to name-calling. Feel-free to delete that but I would like the person who deleted four year's worth of info. and work, not to metion the additional 40 edits/changes that I myself deleted as a "sacrifice" to recover the originally deleted material (would like the person to know what damage was done AND in such a casual manner w/o going-back to see that said edits were not harmful)...I am truly sorry but I am working on a machine that is about as fast as dial-up, and I am unfamiliar myself with the tricks-of editing, plus I used that section as a valuable refrence often and my own personal frustration was involved...so, I really am sorry about any and all mistakes and rudeness. Thank-you for anything that you can do to repair the mess.♥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.29.229 (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding. Although the edits seem extreme due to all that content the user removed, it can all be back with the click of a button. We don't really get too harsh with the warnings about removal of content unless they continue to remove content after being warned. If you ever have any questions about this or another Wikipedia topic, feel free to ask me on my talk page. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Just one thing: As the SineBot says above, please remember to sign your talk page posts, so that people know who they're communicating with. Happy Editing! :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indented line68.37.29.229 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK-now I am really confused: I think I now have a conversation going-on in about 4 diff. places. What the quotes are, are like title-cards that each woman says to describe herself. The quote stays with each character for an entire season. That is why they were starting to stack-up. Because sometimes or always in the case of The Real Housewives of New Jersey, the quotes are changed. It is kind-of a big deal because it is anticipated/talked-about by viewers etc. They say the (individual) quotes at the very beginning of each episode and they stick with them for a season.68.37.29.229 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they quotes are part of title cards, then maybe you're right, and you should restore them. Nightscream (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-they are a big topic of conversation and apparently they were hand-gathered by people who viewed them and went to the trouble of posting them here. I will try to restore, but I'm new. I myself messed them up when I thought that I saw a problem with the code. Now what about "H"? The show has a new episode tonight and the article will have some added content/visitors today and tomorrow and when the ratings come-in.68.37.29.229 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to List of The Real Housewives of New Jersey episodes has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Episode summaries copied from Bravo official website: http://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-new-jersey/season-4/episode-11-the-sniff-test Please read the copyright policies. "Go talk to every other tv show before deleting this one please" is not an excuse. Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

REPLYNo. It is not a copyright violation. The owner of the copyright freely shares episode information. Please refer yourself to NBCU media village, where promotional information is shared and meant to be shared. Also, please research the Wikipedia policy as it applies to promotional information.-thankX68.37.29.229 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(copied) Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.WP:NFCI

That section you are quoting from (WP:NFCI) is regarding images. Please read the sections on text. This is not a case of Non-Free Use. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP, plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 68.37.29.229. You have new messages at TBrandley's talk page.
Message added 23:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 68.37.29.229. You have new messages at TBrandley's talk page.
Message added 23:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to List of The Real Housewives of New Jersey episodes has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at List of The Real Housewives of New Jersey episodes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you.Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring on List of The Real Housewives of New Jersey episodes. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

68.37.29.229 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

abuse of administrative powers-HELP please

Decline reason:

Continuing the content dispute here and making accusations of "abuse of administrative powers" is not the way to get yourself unblocked - and if you continue to edit-war when the block expires, you should expect to be blocked again for longer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is a can of worms. The person who has blocked me and the original person who deleted material which I attempted to undo, (episode descriptions for The Real Housewives of New Jersey), were asked nicely in my opinion to take the problem to some other tv show. Take for example, The Sopranos, and True Blood, two other tv shows and two different ways of presenting the episode information. The criteria for non free content has some very strict guidelines, also the, "burden of proof" which I believe I have completely demonstrated is the case for this particular television show-YET, I feel that my lack of participation with Wikipedia is causing a problem with the FAIR resolution here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.29.229 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) You basically just explained that if unblocked, you will continue to edit war. Numerous editors, myself included, have tried to explain why you cannot directly copy episodic summaries from other websites. As for the other TV shows you listed that do this; instead of trying to cause the same trouble at Real Housewives, how about you rewrite the summaries at those articles? I do not expect that you will be unblocked, and for the rest of your short block, I recommend you review some of Wikipedia's key policies including those on edit warring and copyright. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question it is because I am right. I have reviewed the copyright rules and it looks to me as-if the non free content criteria applies here. Rewriting the summaries is not the answer to the problem.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria You have ten criteria which must be met, and in this case the deleted content meets all ten. (a LOT!) Re-writing episode descriptions is not the way to do this. Also are you suggesting that I ruin other Wikipedia television series articles in the same way that this one has been? I really am correct here and I am quickly starting to worry about Wikipedia if this is the way things are allowed to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.29.229 (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Directly from WP:NFCC: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, or a similar method." First of all, this page is mainly focused around the non-free use of media (such as images or sounds). In order to include text copied from another source, it must be a quotation properly attributed to the place you got it from. This means copied episode summaries cannot be used; they are not quotations. Eliminating copyright violations is not "ruining" other articles, but rather bringing them up to an appropriate standard. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please try to remember to sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah-the signing thing is somewhat annoying I might try not to remember. Wouldn't it be easier to add the proper citation than just deleting the material? In most cases, and this one, the episode guide is set-aside and, "specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, or a similar method"...Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier and less destructive, just to add "promotional", or some such thing, even a question mark, or phrase that asks where it came from exactly if that is what you want? I want to know what Wikipedia policy is regarding episodes for ALL tv-shows, and the way that some of you have apparently decided to do it is destructive. The point of avoiding copyright violation is a mainly legal one. Can't you people use your heads here and realize that NBC, and other tv networks are not going to sue Wikipedia for using promotional material that was put out by NBC, (in this case), with the INTENTION that the words be disseminated and repeated verbatim?no-no-no-no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.29.229 (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that we editors feel strongly about copyright; it's Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong; I've developed several television episode articles to good status, and it would have been much easier to copy the descriptions from an external source. But we cannot do that, because even though the source providing the summary may not sew, it is still a copyright violation, and Wikipedia doesn't tolerate those. A citation would not change anything, because it is still considered plagiarism. If you wanted to read over the episode summaries provided by the external source, and then paraphrase them into your own words, that would be okay. But if you do that, it is likely that the paraphrasing will end up being too close to the original source's text. Therefore, I recommend simply writing the episode summaries yourself. I know it is a hassle, but I do it, and so does every other editor on Wikipedia to avoid copyright issues. Do you understand? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TRLIJC19, I'd love to just copy, but I can't, because its copyright. Just try to re-write episode summarizes yourself. TBrandley 04:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While avoiding legal problems is, of course, important to Wikipedia, we cannot base our copyright policy on whether we think the copyright owner is likely to sue - copyright laws require a site like Wikipedia to remove violations when made aware of them, even if the copyright owner does not take action, and being so cavalier with the intellectual property of others would do us harm. But it's not just about copyright anyway, it's also about ethics - an ethical writer does not plagiarize other people's work. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if all of you are really serious, or is someone trying to sabotage and ruin the television section of Wikipedia by hoisting it on it's own petards? As I have pointed out more than one time here already, one of the ten criteria, a very important one, says that NON Free use is a permitted use of material IF there is no replacement for it. Episode info. was removed, deleted, and NOT replaced by any other description of the episodes.--and your reply is to go ahead and write my own episode description? What if I MISSED the episode, and came to Wikipedia for the purpose of seeing which episode it was? Or for other research involving episodes? In that case, the episode description is more of a labeling system. A small faction of people should not be allowed to control this important aspect of television series information on Wikipedia. This is wrong and since it involves crucial parts of ALL articles involving television series, someone should alert the very highest authority here at Wikipedia before allowing it to be changed/deleted in this nasty little way, (banning people, bullying them, and accusing them of nonsense while ignoring and being ignorant about the destruction being caused to an entire topic and the importance). One again I will tell you that you are seriously WRONG, and it appears intent on destroying and damaging Wikipedia. The fact that you are allowed to do so in such an arrogant way makes me sad for what was a good resource.9no-no-no-no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.29.229 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know how many more ways I can say it. The non-free content policy refers to quotes and media. There is no "highest authority" on Wikipedia; we are all equal contributors. If you missed the episode, I am sure someone else will write about it. If not, as I said, look at the episode description from the external source, and paraphrase it. What don't you understand about that? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: " IF there is no replacement for it." There IS a possible replacement for it, your own words! And the non-free policy does not apply to the general written content of articles, just to other media like photos. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is really sad. I really do not want to waste my time arguing with ignorant bureaucrats. What ever happened to the idea that people would need to take IQ or other intelligence tests before being allowed to have administrative

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

68.37.29.229 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

reason=administrative abuse.HELP someone has taken-over Wikipedia and they are not very smart

Decline reason:

You have the right not to agree with wikipedia rules; but you do not have the right to ignore them in your edits. No valid unblock reason given.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

,

Incidentally, while I would concede that signing talk edits is not compulsory, a stated determination not to do so can be seen as counter-productive. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have revoked talk page access for the duration of the block, because it is only being used to be abusive. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]