Talk:List of Cyberchase episodes

message: If anybody can get season 6, that will be great. 70.107.129.94 12:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you've checked http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/parentsteachers/show/episodes.html. You seem to be doing a great job, and I'm clueless as to where the unreleased 6th season can be found. However, I suggest removing links from episode titles as the episodes themselves may not be notable enough for their own articles. Wikipedia:Television episodes. --Squids'and'Chips 16:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's not worth bringing up, but almost all the episode summaries are copied directly from the offical website. 70.250.40.203 03:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I am trying to complete or PBS KIDS episode guides. I need help. Can you help? Also PBS KIDS isn't looking good here. Help and write back finding more info about this. Thanks again. I'm leaving out one last thing: I'm trying to make some time undoing  the episodes. 70.107.129.94 11:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think it's too late now for the undoing. Check the page... 70.107.129.94 21:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soon I will begin  again for Season 6. Is it a good or bad idea. If any user adds an episode for its own page I would just copy of the main idea of the episodes and use it for the page instead. 70.107.129.94 23:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Monster boy may know some info because he knew Wicked was in 603. Sorry if i'm wrong. Ask. 70.107.125.12 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great news. Found more season 6. 70.107.125.12 (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plots

message: This entire article is a verbatim copy of the Cyberchase list of episodes at PBSKids.org. This is not permissible. Notice the little statement at the bottom of the edit window? "CONTENT THAT VIOLATES ANY COPYRIGHT WILL BE DELETED." Someone needs to indicate their willingness to rewrite this article, posthaste, so it is no longer in violation of PBS's copyright, or it will be nominated for deletion. And by "it will be nominated", I mean "I will nominate it." The PBS kids shows are an absolute hotbed of copyvio, and it's got to end. I'm already working on Curious George and Dragon Tales; I can't do it all. (signing my old post here; apparently three tildes does not equal four tildes, something I would have learned from watching Cyberchase--which I could, if people would lay off the copyvio long enough for me to watch some dang television.)Gladys J Cortez 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  COPYVIO 

message: In the episode description for "Hugs & Witches" (Season 2 premiere) it states "This episode is significant for containing a mathematical error."  What is this mathematical error? Mr. College (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical Error 

message: I've noticed that on some of the episodes theres a  * after the name of the episode. Why is that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlfur (talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Umm,

message: Here is some things that should be looked into for adding:
*Cyberchase for real episdoes Title and Description
*Any guest stars
*Color Code each season (begun the process of doing so)
*Why was List of Cybersites Deleted?
*Should we do a list of Cyberchase Characters?
Add any suggestions below:
Update 11/29/2013------------
*I have brought back a list of Cyberchase characters to the main page and brought back an old page "List of Cyberchase Characters"
*I Finished color coding all the sections.
*Added a box for the seasons premieres and finales.
*Please put Season 9's notes at the bottom, they are too massive for the top.Ians18 (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Information 

message: According to local listings, "The Cyberchase movie" episode will air as a one hour event on April 15, rather than in two parts on two separate dates. So this will be episodes 904/905. Accordingly, they should be combined on this table, but I'm not sure how to do that. I notice also that the dates for new episodes are highly speculative until they actually are on listings and can be verified. That's how I uncovered the real date for this one-hour episode. I would welcome feedback about either the episode airing dates or the movie episode. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further examination of local listings, I discovered that "The Cyberchase Movie" will air as two separate episodes on the 21st and 22nd of April. I still feel the premiere date should be listed as the 15th, but would welcome input on this as well. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They should all be included, but the non-premire dates should be noted (in parentheses). LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Either we are missing an episode, or some episodes got misplaced in the article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: From what has recently been added to the article, it seems that The Cyberchase Movie is comprised of Episodes 98–100, which aired from Tuesday, April 15, to Wednesday, April 16, as a special. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't know how it aired in your neck of the woods, but in mine, the Cyberchase Movie only aired on Tuesday April 15 as an hour long special and then aired again the next week on Monday April 21 and Tuesday April 22 as a two part special, so I have no idea where you got the notion that it comprises three parts. I'd be more inclined to believe we're missing an episode in our listings somewhere. Now we just need to discover where the error is. It'll take some work and more than a little searching, but I'm sure we can find it. I don't believe for a minute that the movie comprises three episodes when it was only the length of two. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

text: When it aired in two parts, neither part had a "Cyberchase for Real" or featured "100 Greatest Cyberchase moments." So I don't know what happened. Thanks for the additional research. While we're on the subject, users with only an IP address keep insisting that "The Cyberchase Movie" constituted the Season 9 Finale. I kept reverting these changes as they continuously remained unsourced. So we will have to find out if indeed that is the case and add that information to this page, with a source. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airing date for new Cyberchase episodes/Cyberchase movie 

message: 216.86.82.43 keeps asserting that The Cyberchase movie marked the end of Season 9 of Cyberchase, but refuses to cite a source to prove it. I have posted a message to this user's talk page asking him/her to cite a source or leave the page alone. He/she is doing neither, but continues to revert my changes. He/she is thus in violation of the 3 revert rule and, in my opinion, should be blocked from further editing. But I'm not sure how to report this user's misconduct. I don't understand the instructions on the relevant report page. I will leave it to someone else with far more Wikipedia experience than mine to request a block on this user for his/her continually disruptive editing. I would also move that we take action to protect this page from edits by anonymous users (users with only an IP address) until they learn to only add material that can be verified with a source. Who's with me? --Jgstokes (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes s/he is VERY annoying, s/he also edits the main page. I appreciate the editing, but without citing a source is creating an issue. --Ians18 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you reported this user. Thanks! I'm glad you knew how to do it, because I didn't. It seems that the page has been okay since our latest posted messages to this user's talk page, so my next question is: Do we still need to request protection for this page, or will it be all right now that this annoying IP seems to be leaving it alone? --Jgstokes (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It really depends on just how many IPs are vandalizing the page and how often it is occurring. If IPs vandalize this article at least every other day, and it isn't limited to a specific group of IPs, then a request for semi-protection would probably be best. However, if the vandalism is actually coming from a few specific IPs, then they should be blocked if they decide to continue. Best regards, LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of 3RR by [[User: 216.86.82.43|216.86.82.43]] 

message: Should we request protection for this page again? Those pesky editors with only IP addresses keep asserting that Season 9 has just 5 episodes and ended on April 15, but refuse to cite sources for it. I have posted warnings on talk pages and requested blocks until I am blue in the face. I think it's time this page got permanent protection from editors with only an IP address who keep asserting unverifiable facts. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do. And please ask the admin to set it for 3–6 months this time (since 1 month of semi-protection didn't work). If it takes too long, I can ask an admin to semi-protect the page. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked over the instructions to request page protection, and, much as I hate to admit it, I'm confused! I don't understand quite how requesting page protection works, nor can I figure out which kind of protection we should request. Would you be able to handle it, LightandDark2000? You seem to have more knowledge about how it works than I do. Even if you don't, you might know of someone else who can make the request for us. I think that, given the current situation (repeat anonymous IP address changing the end date and asserting that season 9 has just 5 episodes) our best route would be to explain the repeat offenses to the admins and to go right to requesting semi-protection for this page. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Finally figured out how to make the request, and through a lot of trial and error, got the request posted to the appropriate place. Requested a 3-6 month semi-protection and I hope we get it. Will keep you posted. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you sooooo much!  I was going to get to it, but I have a very big school load to deal with this year (Junior year). Unfortunately, I will be reduced to editing sporadically until Thanksgiving Break in November, but whenever I have the free time, I will always check back in to help out. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Good luck with your school work. You will be missed, but I know how that goes. Unfortunately, the admins only authorized the page protection for one month. I couldn't make a convincing enough case for a longer period of time. But hopefully that's enough for the anon. IPs to get the message. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What??? Only 1 month? I already got it protected for 1 month in either May or June... I guess we'll have to ramp it up a bit with the anons/novices. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the admin who authorized the protection said he/she didn't see enough reason to authorize the protection for a longer period of time, though I did request it for 3-6 months. We will have to be diligent and watch the anon. IPs for violations. Then maybe if they continue to violate, we can make a case for protection for a longer period of time. --Jgstokes (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: I'm calling BS on the production codes in the article. What is the source for these? My suspicion is that these are fabricated. The US Copyright Office, for instance, doesn't include these three digit numbers. I think they should be cut. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Tag them with  and if they aren't sourced within a reasonable time, remove them. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   Now both of you are spitting out BS. For two random users that by the way have had little editing experience with Cyberchase and probably don't even really know what Cyberchase is and haven't watched more than maybe 1 episode, you guys sure put up a fight. Well take a look at  Cyberchase Website and  Cyberchase Parent Site both of which use production codes. AussieLegend, the fact that you, as a pretty well developed editor, would blindly agree without source-checking, is quite astonishing; to me you have lost all credibility. Ians18 (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While we may not have edited this article much, we have both had a lot of experience editing television articles and far more than that editing Wikipedia generally, so we do know what policies apply. For example, Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies says,  That is why I suggested adding . That alerts readers to the fact that the content has been. If it isn't sourced within a reasonable timeframe, any editor is free to remove the content. As for the links you provided (the second one doesn't work, by the way), are the numbers there actually production codes, or just episode numbers? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Ians18, Neither of the two links you've provided are working for me. One gives me a 503 error, the other a 404. Archives aren't helpful: . And you are correct, I've never seen one episode of Cyberchase. That has no meaning or bearing here, because article formatting, and bringing articles up to bare minimum standards has nothing to do with episode content. Now if I were writing a plot summary, you might have a point. In many ways being ignorant of the series is a benefit—I won't be so bogged down in my adoration of the series to include speculative cruft like "The new love interest is a boy, Ollie, and he wears glasses; given that Inez wears glasses, she could be the love interest."  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed links, you can just go to the Cyberchase website anyways. If you looked at the URL. Ians18 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production codes 

message: How is February 10th in violation of WP:ORDINAL? It is not superscripted, has no Roman Numerals, and is not noted with a dot (.) Ians18 (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody said that February 10th in violation of WP:ORDINAL. The entire edit summary was . WP:ORDINAL actually refers to "5", not "February 10th". The part of the edit summary that refers to that is "date fixes", which should be obvious given that "February 10th" is a date. As for what is overly detailed, I didn't add the tag, but most of the "topic" column falls in that category, as does a lot of the season introduction information. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Ians18, MOS:BADDATEFORMAT addresses ordinals in dates. We don't use July 2nd, the 11th of December, etc. We would write July 2, 11 December, etc. depending on context. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordinals and Overly Detailed 

message: I've done a significant rejiggering of the episode sections.
* Notes sections – It didn't make any sense that we had these bullet-point notes hidden underneath the table where they serve no purpose. So in this edit, all notes that were original research (speculation, interpretation, etc.) were cut. I also cut redundant notes that were either already mentioned in the episode table or in the season-specific lead-in. (ex: if "First appearance of so-and-so" appeared in the table, then we don't need to mention that again.) 
;Still to do:
* Season 9 – The season 9 note section is a mess and we're going to have to chop a bunch out of that. Most of the content sounds like it was added before anybody had seen an episode from this season, and fans were trying to predict the shape of the season. I think most of it could probably be cut, because we now have the episode summaries that should ostensibly tell us what's happening in the season. Alternatively, whatever content can be salvaged could conceivably be converted to prose, given that the prose adheres to normal encyclopedic standards, isn't crufty, is supported with references and adequate context, etc.
* Season leads – The season leads aren't quite written in proper encyclopedic tone. Statements like "The Cybersquad is at it again", and "A lot may be going on in Cyberspace, but the Cybersquad shall continue to stop Hacker" reads a little too much like press release copy. It's certainly reparable. It looks like there was some consideration for providing brief overviews of the series arcs, so that's helpful and can be improved.
* Tables - We need to establish a consistent episode table format. I think the format from seasons 2-7 makes the most sense given the amount of information we're trying to convey. Six columns with: Ep. #, Production Code, Title, Air date, Plot, Topic. Obviously if we decide to add writers/directors, we'll have to again convene.
Thoughts anyone? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformatting and plan for upcoming changes 

message: I have cut the Facts section in this edit. This section was presumably created prior to Season 9 airing as a means of predicting what was going to take place in the season. Since the season has been produced and has aired, there is no need to predict what was to happen. Any relevant content should have already been included in each episode summary or, in the case of any relevant production content, perhaps incorporated into the season intros. (For example, I moved the info about the animation house to the intro, because that is relevant.) An indiscriminate list, however, is not something Wikipedia gets behind. There were other issues too, including that most of the facts were improperly attributed quotations, but the greater point is that if we ever hope to get this article into any sort of decent shape, we have to get rid of the hasty listcruft. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: and Thanks!  Ians18 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts section. 

message: Prior content in this  duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www-tc.pbskids.org/cyberchase/parentsteachers/lessons/pdf/teachers_guide_1st_edition.pdf and other PBS pages. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: My removal of infringing content (please see above) was reverted by . Rather than enter into an edit-war, I have again blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP for someone else to review and deal with (I won't be taking any further action here). Please note that the copyvio notice may be removed only by an admin, a copyright clerk, or an OTRS agent. The blanked content should not be edited until the matter is resolved. Anyone is free to work on a copyvio-free rewrite here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused why  didn't voice his objection here on the talk page. His explanation doesn't seem sound to me if the rationale for removing the content is to avoid copyright violations.  If the content is in violation of copyright it needs to be removed regardless of dispute. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I know for a fact that EVERYTHING in Season 9 is written by me and therefore not under copyright. I don't understand why you keep putting up these notices. If you continue to do so, I will have to bring this to admin review (other than Cyphoidbomb who doesn't appear to be the least bit helpful) and a possible block for vandalism. WikIan -(talk) 23:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ? A nice, pissy, passive-aggressive note, but If I remember correctly, I spent considerable time paring down the copyright violations that somehow you missed. Do you have a more specific complaint that you'd like me to address? If so, let me know. If not, please save the pissiness. So far I've seen complaints from you, but little in the way of specific suggestions for improvement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "solution" was to blank all the Topic summaries, what helpful editing... My edits, on the other hand, include actually writing Season 9 from scratch, creating the episode overview table, AND converting to the new table structure. WikIan -(talk) 04:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: More complaints without solutions. If you think I'm going to chase you around a tree for answers, you're mistaken. If the content is violating copyright, it should be removed. What would have been your preferred alternative? To closely paraphrase the copyrighted content? Closely paraphrasing copyrighted content is still a copyright violation. The second issue is whether the content belongs in the article at all, or if it's just more fancruft, which has already been problematic to manage. If the content is important, it probably should have been incorporated into the plot summaries in an intuitive way. For instance, if the main characters needed to use geometry to figure out the location of something on a map, that would not be hard to incorporate into a plot summary. "In order to escape from So-and-So, the team learns about bisecting angles using geometry, plots their escape route on a map, and digs a tunnel to freedom." This would be the intuitive way to add this information instead of inflating the episode list with a Topic column/row. But alas, it was apparently more attractive for lazy editors to plagiarize than it was to write from scratch. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: People, please don't argue over this, it isn't worth it. It'll be dealt with fairly soon, though not by me; unfortunately the copyright problems noticeboard is seriously backlogged. Just to be clear: there is definitely a copyright violation here; however, I may have been over-cautious in removing all the summaries (please see my comment ), so I'm going to wait for someone else to evaluate this. But meanwhile, there's really not much mileage in arguing about it, OK? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

text:   Fortunately for me, I didn't even read any of those source materials and therefore in no way could have copied or paraphrased that content in the slightest fashion. I had watched the episodes, which I'm sure you haven't, and then came here to write all about it. Thanks for your concern, however. WikIan -(talk) 05:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea what you're going on about. Nobody's accused you of copying or paraphrasing the content. Please consider withdrawing from the discussion until you have constructive input to contribute. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio blanking

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of Cyberchase episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105042939/http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-codename-icky-dvd.html to http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-codename-icky-dvd.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105042928/http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-starlight-night-dvd.html to http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-starlight-night-dvd.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105041715/http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-the-snelfu-snafu-dvd.html to http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-the-snelfu-snafu-dvd.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of Cyberchase episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105041741/http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-ecohaven-cse-dvd.html to http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-ecohaven-cse-dvd.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As of right now, many episode summaries have been copied from Cyberchase Wiki. That wiki licenses content according to the Creative Commons CC BY-SA license, which requires attribution. I've added a  template for basic attribution, but for legal reasons, individual pages from the Cyberchase Wiki might need to be linked so the contributors there get proper attribution. clpo13(talk) 18:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying from Wikia 

message: In this edit I boldly removed the Cybersite content. The information is not presented in an encyclopedic way, and "Cybersites" have no meaning to anyone who isn't already familiar with the series, and there's no way to tell what significance they have in the series or why we should care that they went there. The appropriate way to include this information, assuming it's even noteworthy, is to include the detail in well-written plot summaries, ("The kids travel to Castleblanca where XYZ happens.") not cram it into a plot summary field without any context. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a trivia/fact scorecard for fans of the show. Wikia would be a better place for this sort of thing. Remember also that we're not trying to replace the experience of watching the series, we're trying to communicate general information to the widest audience possible. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cybersites 

message: Hello, everyone! I wanted to start a dialogue today about some concerns I had about the listed air dates. I googled the episodes airing in 2010, and all of them apparently aired a week earlier than asserted here. That is verified by googling the other episodes. So that got me wondering: are any of the other air dates inaccurate as well? If they are, this page may need an overhaul. Just wanted to note that. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: With all of the vandalism coming from the IPs recently, its possible that a number of the air dates are off. However, I think that most of them are accurate, especially for the earliest seasons and the latest episodes. That being said, you might want to double-check. You could look in the revision history, before all of this mess began, to see what might have changed since then. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air dates may need some work 

message: I noticed that most, if not all of the recent IP edits within the past 2 months have either been vandalism, unconstructive, or unsourced changes. Does anyone else agree that a semi-protection may be needed to stop the disruptive editing? If this continues, I will head to an admin to request a semi-protection for a couple of months. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for starting this discussion thread. My suggestion would be that we make such a request immediately. The anonymous editors that have been changing these dates so much lately obviously aren't interested in explaining why they have done so, and they have constantly ignored invitations regular editors of this page have given to them to discuss this on the talk page. It's time we nip this in the bud. I will go ahead and make the request. There have been similar issues with other pages I've edited recently where the same kind of thing has gone on, so requesting page protection has become more common for me. I will get that done right now. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just reporting back to note that I have made the request. And now we wait. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually know a couple of admins who would be willing to answer the request, presumably at a faster speed. If the current request goes unanswered for several days, then I will make a new one as I mentioned earlier. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection? 

message: 74.51.209.226 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Empty Request Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, just in case you're wondering (to the IP editor), this Semi-Page Protection will not be lifted. We've seen too many disruptive or unsourced edits on the article within the past few months. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017 

message: 74.51.209.226 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on List of Cyberchase episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/webisode_1/11.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/webisode_2/13.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/webisode_3/13.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/web_adventures.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/webisode_4/20.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/web_adventures.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/webisode_5/4.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/web_adventures.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/web_adventures.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbskids.org/cyberchase/math-games/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thirteen.org/13pressroom/press-release/thirteens-emmy-award-winning-series-cyberchase-launches-season-11-halloween-themed-episode-october-23-pbs-kids/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105043029/http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-totally-rad-dvd.html to http://shop.pbskids.org/cyberchase-totally-rad-dvd.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why did you reverse my edit?
Popthemop27  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popthemop27 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 

message: Here's a source that you could view airdates from the 2000s to clear up the airdate problem. The link takes you to the current month's previous airdates, but you could view other months. I was too furious minutes ago, but I'm calming down. I hope this source helps.
https://www.kqed.org/tv/programs/archive/index.jsp?pgmid=10666
128.62.70.160 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Airdates