This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animation This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. BBC Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC ( See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. ( See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Television: British This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the British television task force.

The edits that you made were so badly done, it was hard to believe that they were valid. So I had to revert them. Yusheng02 ( talk) 23:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply

As has already been explained on your talk page, you need to explain your actions and why you think all of the edits are vandalism (they are not) as well as what version you are reverting to on the article's talk page. Simply disagreeing with the edits is not justification for calling them vandalism and reverting multiple edits, especially when, also as explained on your talk page, many of the edits are quite valid. Since your inappropriate reversions have been opposed, three times now, you need consensus for these changes. Persistently reverting without valid justification, with examples, is edit-warring and will likely result in you being blocked, especially since you are now refusing to explain yourself, as indicated by this edit summary. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 23:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply

This page looks so bad, it looks more like vandalism than "valid" edits! It looks so informal, compared to the previous version! I mean, look at all those uncapitalised "numberjacks"! And there is absolutely no evidence that Numberjacks was aired on TV Asahi! Yusheng02 ( talk) 02:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

You reverted all of the changes on the page as vandalism and that was simply not appropriate as there are many valid edits, for example these. It's impossible to work out what you think is vandalism because you still haven't explained that. A quick look through the page history shows several bad edits as well as reversions of those bad edits. Prior to your most recent reversions, you last edited on 27 July 2019 but that is not the version that you've been reverting to, [1] so your reversions do not look productive, which is why I have asked you several times to explain what revision you are reverting to. That you have removed a valid maintenance template that has been in the article since September 2018, as well as several other valid templates, makes it look like you have reverted at least that far. There are certainly some issues with edits made by Playgroup2015, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but that doesn't justify reverting everything. I'm happy to work with you to make fixes to the article but I can't do that if I don't know what your specific objections are. You need to make several smaller changes, explaining them with appropriate edit summaries and not just make one big revert. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Make several smaller changes? But won't editing several times be considered repetitive by the other users? You know, as in spamming? Yusheng02 ( talk) 15:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The changes don't have to be miniscule. Make changes and explain them all in the edit summary. Then make the next change and explain that. Make as many changes as you need to. If you do that and somebody then makes a bad edit (vandalism etc), it's a help if there's an edit summary already explaining whay it's wrong. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The first link (to the Numberjacks store) is out of date. JonathanEdits ( talk) 22:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2A02:C7F:1E94:D100:B06F:151C:B2E3:A936 (
talk) 15:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
reply

Zero - a lime green numberjack in the shape of the 0 symbol-he is a baby and does not talk One -a purple number

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

There is a meme called "Beanos". It features the character "One" from these series and a remixed Spongebob song. So there should be a new section called "Internet popularity" where it is told about the meme that first was published on May 2019 featuring the character from the series, "One" standing in front of a wall (from the episode "One More Time"). I hope that section will be added and i can't edit it myself because it is semi-protected.

cool. im gonna do that. Lionsleeps23 ( talk) 18:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

27.109.115.133 (
talk) 13:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ahextra2010 (
talk) 19:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
reply

I Need To Edit Semi-Protected Pages.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC) reply