User talk:Changeisgame

July 2016

Hello, I'm Electricburst1996. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Steven Universe episodes, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about you actually read Matt Burnett's tweets before having a tantrum at me and telling me I'm ruining pages by adding correct info? https://twitter.com/mcburnett/with_replies Minecraft69 (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did and realized.. Calm Plus you didn't add a source so I didn't know

American Horror Story (season 6)

Stop removing "Orphanage", the article is not stating the season will feature an orphanage, it's citing that reports have speculated it will. The information is valid to the subsection it is located in. Do not be disruptive. LLArrow (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's confirmed not to be Orphanage... So why have it there when it isn't truthfully not gonna be. The promos give no vibe of an Orphanage.. Come on......

List of American Horror Story episodes

DO NOT remove the corresponding seasonal numbers as they inform the structure of the episode tables. The word "Season" is already present at the top of the series table, adding it to the number box is erroneous. Stop making disruptive edits, take your concerns to the Talk page if not satisfied. LLArrow (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't reply to me on my Talk page reply here, and I will respond. You must stop asserting your opinion on this article. Take your concerns to the Talk page or risk getting banned from contributing to Wikipedia altogether. LLArrow (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting my opinion in the article? I'm just cleaning up the info box. The same could be said for you, as well. What you added was extra and does not need to be there. It makes it look cluttered and tight. There, again, is no need for the corresponding number by the subtitle. My would I be banned? That seems very unnecessary. Just trying to help organize the page.

Would you please learn how to leave comments properly, sign them. What I revert your edits to is not my opinion, the opinion is the unsourced, new edit that you have contributed. Something that was already present and established in the article is the status quo, you changing it without warrant is the opinion. Basic logic here. Please take some time to read all rules and regulation for Wikipedia. LLArrow (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like my edit stayed, so I do not understand what your issue really is. Sorry for not signing, I'm somewhat new here. What I contributed did not need a source, it was just deleting unnecessary numbers. What you were adding was already stated in the Episode tab. The titles are in order, so it was quite obvious what number they took on. Basic logic here. And as for the whole "opinion thing" you are defending with, doesn't really add up. Your edit never use to be present and I thought, when I saw it, what useless, crowding information. So I changed it and you got all offended. Thanks for the tips and your welcoming voice of "reason". Nice way to welcome new comers.Changeisgame (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Changeisgame[reply]

Sarcasm will not be tolerated on Wikipedia, here we work and contribute as adults, not wallow in petulant self pity. Of course the edit you tried to bull into existence is now in effect, the original editor that added the information in question decided to side with you. Case closed, move on. Furthermore, I don't allow anything to offend me on Wikipedia, because that would imply my personal attention. Wikipedia does not have my personal attention, it has my professional, as it will always have. You would do well to grow a thick professional skin if your going to edit in the big leagues, it's a wild jungle out here. Good luck, LLArrow (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm? I think we both are subject to that. ( As seen in both of our comments ) How am I offending you. You just called me childish and I, personally, feel offended. I don't understand why you are continuing to bring up this matter. I'm very glad the original editor saw the light. At least he has some perception, something I feel you are lacking. Maybe try walking around the world. Traveling it truly an enjoy I hear. Maybe looking in to detail will enlighten your senses and give you more reason. Don't be a bigot. The world can be a selfish place. Again, thanks for your friendly advice, Wish you well Changeisgame (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Changeisgame[reply]

Okay, now that I know what type of editor you are I shall be monitoring you closely and report you for any further wrongdoing. I feel confident that your time on this wonderful site shall be abbreviated. Good day. LLArrow (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further wrong doing? What did I do wrong in the first place? I feel somewhat threatened and don't really appreciate your sarcasm.(Thought that was not allowed??) Also, please don't stalk me, that's quite creppy. Always a pleasure,Changeisgame (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Changeisgame[reply]

@LLArrow: This falls under WP:WIKIHOUNDING (Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.), and if you proceed to do so, you will be reported without hesitation. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs) report me. Considering your behaviour of late, as well as this user... by the end of the whole kerfuffle we'll all be banned. Do it. LLArrow (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apparent "behaviour" is merely due to you disagreeing with the edits implemented by myself and the owner of this talk page. You are the one stalking other users, hoping that their editing time here will be short, and demanding that others talk in a certain manner while doing the very same thing yourself. Unacceptable. This is why other editors find you so hard to edit with. (I have a feeling I've said that before.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so is that it or are you going to actually take some sort of action, or just keep on contributing words that I'm (and I'd wager anybody) isn't paying any mind to?. I'm done talking, action or drop it. LLArrow (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read my previous comment of when I said when I was going to report you. If you weren't paying any mind to it, you wouldn't be replying, yet you keep coming back here without a ping. Good lad. Enjoy your day. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lad? Do I sense some british sensibility, Alex? And here I thought all Brits were posh and tactful. I'll say this, people like you two keep it interesting. Peace and love, LLArrow (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LLArrow: If you wish to engage with other users, please do it on their talk page. You are only dragging me into this, again, by notifying every time you continue to bing up the already resolved matter. This is nonsense. Please be thoughtful,Changeisgame (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Changeisgame[reply]

I think you mean Alex, actually. LLArrow (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I most certainly mean you. He solved the dispute and furthermore gave you quite simple instruction on how to treat other users. Again, what is the hold up? Are you not satisfied with the result? I don't know what else to say. Sorry,Changeisgame (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Changeisgame[reply]

American Horror Story (season 6) again

DO NOT ever add or condone unverified information in an article on Wikipedia. Your previous action on the page was borderline bannable. Take your grievances to the Talk page. LLArrow (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry mistakes happen, especially when new information surfaces. The information was not "bull", but as I read, didn't have the most reliable source. I would show you the pictures but they were all deleted or asked to be removed by "untold forces" on twitter. Also, didn't know one edit was enough to enforce a ban... Won't happen again, Changeisgame (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can show me whatever pictures you like, they mean absolutely nothing to Wikipedia. Are you reading the articles I'm linking to? There are very few forms of acceptable sources, some random picture, scrounged by rabid fans is the furthest thing from verifiable. LLArrow (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally understand that the source is no wear near reliable. I, personally, don't have the photos, but I scanned around and found a sight on reddit and their AHS fanbase still has them up. Here are the links http://i64.tinypic.com/2u75e1u.jpg & https://i.reddituploads.com/e538aa66f0cf40d290f7bb76d2028bb1?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=fb861c3247eff6164da2265420cf06c3 I think this happened with Freak Show. The format looks the same and everything. Again, I have no idea who "leaked" the supposed photos, but I do know there was issues and almost all the twitter accounts got in trouble. Ultimately everything was removed and put to a hush. Changeisgame (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at American Horror Story (season 6).

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Yes, I will warn you for reverting, since you have done this multiple times and have not learnt your lesson that Wikipedia does not condone disruptive edits like yours. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 20:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only reverted your edit once, so I don't really understand your warning. The information that was posted about the characters this season was proven to be fake anyway. Disruptive editing, as I read, is continuing to add information and causing distress with the page. I did NOT do that. If anything, some of the others editing the page are disruptive. Good day, Changeisgame (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're being selective with the rules. Disruptive editing is also adding/condoning false/unsourced/incorrectly sourced info, which you did, hence this and my warning. Also I noticed your edit on the main American Horror Story declaring, on your authority, that the theme for the sixth season will not be The Mist. Although the editor you reverted was incorrect in format, they were correct in fact. Multiple sources have confirmed that the title of the season will be The Mist. We do not accept hear-say or blubbering fan rumours as fact or relevant. Here cold, hard verifiable sources are what fly. You really need to curb your fannatic behavior or you could find yourself not editing here anymore. LLArrow (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is with me and the user who warned me. I don't know why you are putting yourself into this conversation. I do not like to be pursed by other users. Tim Minear confirmed that the title will NOT be "The Mist". It was also removed from all the places where is was supposedly leaked. I, also, sent you the photos and explained to you somewhat on what happened. I reverted the edit once. And I clearly left it alone when it was again. So, why am I continuing to get harped. I find some people on the Wikipedia to be so difficult and often quite jumpy with their words. And yes, as I have said before, I understand that the "leak" ( Now proven to be a troll ) did not have a exceptional source. You and me, as seen above, already discussed the issue. Now, stop inputting yourself into my other discussions. Thank you, Changeisgame (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with Minear as writer and a person and he has said no such thing. If you have proof otherwise provide a much desired verifiable link to him stating that. Just more fan bulloney. If Wikipedia is proving too much for you, you can always stop editing. P.S. What I'm doing here is totally normal Wikipedia behavior. LLArrow (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up, why are you even responding? Please, get off my talk page, you have no reason to be discussing with me. This doesn't have anything to do with you. As I recall, from looking at AHS season 6 page, you added what I provided after you yelled at me, but Alex removed it. I love editing ;) Changeisgame (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is my Tim Minear confirmation article/statement? I don't see it anywhere? LLArrow (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to answer to you, so please watch yourself. I, again, wish you would respect my wishes and stop implying yourself into my feed. Thats quite rude of you to be honest. As for the link here it is https://twitter.com/sanitybar/status/771454052219715584 And before you flip I know it could of been forged, but unless you want to contact him yourself, live with it. Again, please stop hounding me, its no where near constructive. Changeisgame (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the whole removing the mist thing. That needed to be done because it is only a rumor and it being implied on the overview section would be misleading. You have no leverage there. Find someone else to bother please, Changeisgame (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I have a reason to engage with you I will do so, that's what user Talk pages are for. As far as your "source", that type of "source" is yet another thing that can get you banned from Twitter. Who is going to listen to some fabricated image by plot starved fans on social media, when two respected websites and magazines are reporting otherwise. Honestly, I am shocked you haven't been banned yet. LLArrow (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, same on your part. You reverted my edit, added "The Mist" and then changed it back to season 6. Its on the history. Seriously, Changeisgame (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "Tim Minear" thing, yeah I told you. If you want to contact and ask him, go for it. Changeisgame (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I need to explain myself, but that was a technical glitch, and I stated they were right in naming The Mist, but wrong in how they did it, which is why I have now corrected it. The information stating that The Mist will in fact be the seasons subtitle is already placed in the season 6 article and now the series article, because that is what verified reports indicate. LLArrow (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We literally have nothing else to talk about. If you want to blame it as a technical glitch you go for it, but from the way it looks, it looked quite tacky. Ask for if the season is going to be called "The Mist", I find that quite unlikely considering there's another program being name that and it just seems quite out of their style. Until Ryan Murphy himself or one of the FX producers confirms the subtitle, I think the rumor should stay at rest but indeed referenced. Now, if you wouldn't mind please leave me alone. Changeisgame (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you aren't very familiar with FX's practices and standards. They have a series on air called American Crime Story, while ABC has American Crime concurrently airing. They don't care what other networks are doing, they march to the beat of their own drum. If you want me to leave, halt your retorts. The street goes two ways. LLArrow (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my talk page, so I end the discussion that you were never really particularly part of in the first place. I find it quite shocking that you think it's ok to divulge into other peoples business. Again, haven't I said this before, no idea why you continue to bring up the this silly matter. Didn't know you were part of FX and knew how they stood. Guess you learn something every day. The world doesn't like double standards, Changeisgame (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can honestly say I have no idea what you are talking about this point. LLArrow (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My honest opinion then would be to just leave. Obviously you like the last word. Good night, Changeisgame (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good night. ;) LLArrow (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you wished my night good. It warms my heart <3333 Changeisgame (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make any more disruptive edits to the article and you will be reported to the administrators. You can not bull your opinion into being. LLArrow (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about changing the color? That isn't causing harm at all. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have to threaten me. Who made you King? And you not liking it is your opinion. The other users didn't have a problem with it. Stop picking fights, Changeisgame (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am going to caution User:LLArrow. You are creating a wp:battle type mentality and wp:bludgeon anyone who opposes you. If I were you, I would seriously consider changing your attitude on American Horror Story: Roanoke and limit your reverts of other people's edits to a minimum. You have the mentality that if "it's not your idea, it can't be on the page." Chase (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You see the problem with creating a witch hunt for other users is it always comes back to bite you. I've edit Wikipedia for 11 years, I'm not about to be intimidated by erroneous claims, from a jaded user. LLArrow (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:LLArrow Talk about civility much? How rude, Changeisgame (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who's speaking to or about civility? We're talking reckless and disruptive behaviour which you are currently engaged in. LLArrow (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you overturning my contributions at every move is more disruptive than anything. What you provide for your argument is truthfully reversible. You are not the wiki King! I'm sorry you disagree ( at everything I put forward ) , but if you don't like it ignore it or find a different way to engage! I'm not causing any harm, so please placid yourself. And take to heart Chase advice. Have a calmer day, Changeisgame (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try and pacify and justify your ludacris behaviour as much as you like. Your actions has been called out by multiple editors, but I will be the one that stays on top of your ubiquitous disruption. I assure you of that. LLArrow (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been called out by you, and one other user for AHS FYI. I don't ever remember reading that you had a clean streak on your talk page? I think you have caused some issues too and I know some users that will back me up on that one. Stop acting like you are innocent. Good day, Changeisgame (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Changeisgame; I see you put "Lady Gaga" back on the article, which the other user is known to revert. I agree with you on this, but I would advise you not to put anything that'll cause any more disruptive behavior from others, until this matter is resolved. Thanks. Chase (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do! Thanks for informing me, I'll take some absence. Changeisgame (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to take an absence! Just be weary, when re-adding things. Absence's don't make Wikipedia any better! Chase (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know it doesn't, but I've been stressed out lately and this is something that I'm starting to enjoy! I do realize that I make mistakes and need to learn more, but the other user just constantly runs me down and I'm quite tired of it. I'm going to be busy these next couple of weeks anyway. I'm just going to sit down and enjoy the show! Thanks for your encouragement! This Wiki needs more people like you! Changeisgame (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classic deflection. Don't get used to Camp's attitude, they are not representative of who correctly contributes to Wikipedia. Two wrong users never make a right. LLArrow (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:FEUD- Bette and Joan Official Poster.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:FEUD- Bette and Joan Official Poster.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Horror Story cast members]

You can give me an explanation, I do not understand what is your reason for undoing my editions.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adina Porter and Leslie Jordan were not listed as main characters in "Roanoke". They were, however, listed as guest stars. When the credits role for "Roanoke" this is shown. Changeisgame (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Credits appear at the end of each episode, and both actors are mentioned.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 18:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And so?? Have you watched the complete credits? Porter and Jordan appear under Guest Stars whenever they appear in an episode. I don't know how to explain that; you may just have to watch it again. Changeisgame (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Adina appears as a guest star. But Leslie does not, so both must be mentioned in the main cast and not as recurring.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 19:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have your facts way backwards. Just because their names are in the credits when they appear doesn't mean they are main cast members. Leslie Jordan was not in the whole season. He was only in for like four episodes, so why would he be a main cast member? As for Porter she has stated multiple times on her Twitter account that she was not listed as a main cast member and takes it as a surprise because she was the final survivor in the season. If you redirect yourself to the main Roanoke page you will see a class-section and clearly see that I am correct. If you want to you can edit that and change it to what you believe but you will quickly be dealt with by other users because you are not correct. And also if you re-watch every episode and watch the credits Kathy Bates through Angela Bassett are always mentioned, but not Porter or Jordan Changeisgame (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the same could be Evan Peters, who appears as in 4 episodes, the same happened in Coven. Then why would he have to be part of the main cast? What I mean is that both actors were mentioned there was for something. So why Taissa Farmiga does not appear included if those credits are supposed to be for recurring actors?--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure why Evan was listed as a main cast member but I think it was because he has always been a staple to the show and they wanted to keep that trend. Big-name equals big money... The recurring section basically covers all the guest and special guest stars of each season. And yes I know that Porter and Jordan were important to the story and I to maybe even view Porter at least equal to the main members, but that doesn't mean we should change what was directly stated in the credits. Changeisgame (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then as you can affirm that the series includes Peters simply by appearing in previous seasons, then why Farmiga does not appear accredited? That is where the interregant is. As far as I understand when the names of actors appear in the credits, they must be ordered as they are accredited. I do not understand what your problem is, you started this dispute by undoing my main issues without any reason, which you never explained. And now just create another dispute, give me a good reason, so that Jorda and Porter can not be included in that section. And I do not expect an answer from a faithful follower of the series.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They do not belong in that section because they were NOT credited as main cast members. I do not understand why you are so confused by that. Just watch the credits https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHtqZ2IJ_QY Changeisgame (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AHS Cast

You can not pretend and come to make changes simply because yes and because you feel like it. This has already been said and what you did was ignore.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 23:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me if this will become an edition war?.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 23:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully not! I'm providing sources that you refused to look at. How may times must we have this discussion?

http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/news/a44416/billie-lourd-american-horror-story-season-seven/ http://www.enstarz.com/articles/190751/20170314/american-horror-story-season-7-air-date-spoilers-update-ryan-murphy-denies-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-will-be-main-stars-of-the-show.htm So, with these as my support, I will revert your revert. PLEASE read the sources this time. Changeisgame (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:Changeisgame reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: ). Thank you. Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 00:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

are you serious?? Just because you are providing to be difficult and can't read sources... Changeisgame (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are at fault to. You refused to review any of the sources I provide.. Changeisgame (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AHS character table.

I prefer to not get into an edit war, so I will create this talk section here. In regards to the title credits, I'm not disregarding the importance of special guest, guest, etc., in many cases, we state that a character is recurring when they appear in 3+ episodes, as labeling them as guest/special guest is in correct in the terms of labels on character tables. Take a look at other character tables on Wikipedia, they are all similar with the labels of main, recurring, guest, and special guest. If the character only appears in 1 or 2 episodes, then we label them as guest/special guest appropriately. If it's more than that, then they are labeled recurring, that's the point of the title recurring, a character who makes regular appearances but are only credited as a guest/special guest. It isn't a depiction of rank, I'm not saying special guest stars are ranked "lower" than recurring, so please don't bring that logic up as edits should be made on factual bases. Saying someone who is titled as special guest is more important is totally opinionated, as some people might not know of that actor, so why should we consider them a special guest? Whereas recurring is based on facts, the fact that that particular character has appeared in 3 or more episodes, regardless of their title credit. So my logic is not incorrect, that's how I have been editing and that's how other editors I have encountered edit as well, we base our edits off of simple facts, not a title or someone's individual "rank", that's totally opinionated.

Another thing, I have had "disputes" with how I thought main cast members should be ordered to have the table look clean, nothing to do with this issue. So please don't try to advocate me being a problem or disturbance on that page since I have rather concrete reasons and logic, instead of reverting someone just because I feel like it. And you are not one to speak with having disputes, as I've also seen you having issues with other editors as well, and I have found your opinions not of sound reasoning.

Anyway, those are my reasons and if need be, I will ask other editors of this page and other relevant pages to put in their opinions. Whatever works, I will go with, so I hope you will to. Cheers. MSMRHurricane (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I just want to say how silly this dispute is. As of now, you are only targeting actors from "Coven" moving actors who have, since its air date, been in that section. The whole point of a special guest star is to draw attention to the person portraying the role. It is not opinionated to say that Billy Eichner will make more than the guest stars under him in "Cult". That is just how the billing works. Never have I seen someone change a credit role due to how many episodes they appear in. After the credits of "AHS" the special guest stars appear and then they role the guests out. This whole three+ logic you are using just does not make any sense, at least in the "AHS" world. Actos like Basset, Mara, Wilrock, or Sevigny all have been recognized as special guest stars, yet you only target most "Coven" oriented actors. I have never said that one should consider someone as a special guest star due to "knowing" them. The blue label is used to sort the show by showing who they recognize above someone who just recurs in the season. We should have a vote because your "factual bases" are far from correct in my eyes. toodle-oo Changeisgame (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basing my edits off of how most character tables are done throughout Wikipedia. The 3+ episode is to determine a recurring character, what's not to get about that? It's simple. Even if they are credited as a special guest, but appear in 3 or more episodes, we usually label them as recurring. That doesn't take anything away from their creditability based on their credits (guest, special guest, etc.), it's just how the tables (in my eyes) work. There's no pecking order, no rank - and I bring this up as you brought it up in a revert a few days ago - that's just how the tables have been done. It's simple, and accurate information. Like I said, it doesn't take anything away from that actors credit billing or their fame, it's just a simple label determined on how many appearances that character has made. This logic applies correctly to this show, like it does with every other show, I guess it's just hard to see with the way the table is set up - the key notes determining red as recurring AND guest, which should be different as they both have different meanings, different commitments, etc. Maybe we should have a consensus to re-vamp the table and make some edits so it will be more accurate, as I see confusion to be honest, hence why I tried to make some clarity via my edits. Cheers. MSMRHurricane (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Changeisgame. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Changeisgame. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]