User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Situation you might be interested in

Just wanted to inform you of the "discussion" here, regarding this edit on the Person of Interest LoE page, as it is identical to what we are dealing with on The Big Bang Theory LoE page. (Note, I am not participating in that discussion space until the proper channels are taken by the editor.) I just wanted you to be aware of it, and you don't have to contribute/join in. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 18:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

We've suddenly got an IP who's never edited on anything related to TV inserting himself into the problem, so I've started a proper discussion on the talk page; it's clear Bugs would rather sit in the corner and pout than do so. I've mentioned the Project TV consensus, but I'm not well versed in it, so if either of you wants to elaborate on what I've said and/or correct me, knock yourselves out. --Drmargi (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It's somewhere there. Might have to dig through the archives. I know it's not in the MOS (but it should be). Also, we have moved to the article talk, if you care to join Aussie. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 20:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I meant to mention that I'm joining Favre in boycotting the AN3 discussion. As a matter of fact, I'm disturbed that Dangerous Panda (an admin!) clearly failed to look at the situation with care before responding, and clearly didn't read what I wrote. --Drmargi (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Dangerous Panda did have some valid points: Baseball Bugs should have started a discussion on the talk page per WP:BRD and you really should have given a better explanation in response to Baseball Bugs' initial question. That said, BRD is usually BRRRD and I suspect you didn't realise the hidden note is rather brief and doesn't adequately cover the reason for not adding years. I hope I've addressed that adequately at the AN3 discussion and LoPoE talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we want to take this to SPI? Bugs has gone conveniently quiet, and he and the IP have a worryingly related editing history. At the very least, we've got a presumptive meatpuppet. --Drmargi (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The ducks are certainly quacking but I don't think there's quite enough evidence at this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, they are. Favrefan1 heard them, too. No question the other IP was Bugs; the edit summary made that clear, but I can't rule out this guy as a meat puppet. And frankly, we know SPI would take an eternity since our esteemed admin corps sees no need to keep it turned over quickly. --Drmargi (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much time to start one today, but I do think an SPI would be helpful. Also some page protection should be implemented (full maybe?). There aren't really any positive contributions that would have to be made on that page for a while, so I think we should go with full. Or at least semi to try to block out these possible sock IPs. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 15:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd semi for now, as a starting place. I don't see the need for full just yet, and I'm not sure an admin would be persuaded to do so. The we can talk about SPI. --Drmargi (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I take it back. SPI and at least semi-protection. We have another new IP suddenly crying about no valid reason to exclude. Bugs is clearly IP socking and very likely has a meat puppet in the longer IP. --Drmargi (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I requested page protection nand an admin said he's applied protection, but didn't. I've just posted to his talk page, explaining that we now have had 2 IPs from Venezuela, one from the Netherlands and another from China, all non-English speaking countries, all are IPs who have never edited Wikipedia before, all speak English very well and all are making the same edits. my spidey-senses are off the scale. --AussieLegend (✉)

Yours and mine both! I saw the protection, but didn't notice it wasn't applied. At least it will get this stopped. --Drmargi (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. It's protected now. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And now we have an editor who hasn't edited anything in 2 years suddenly supporting Bugs after which his very next edit was at the Reference Desk replying to a post by Bugs? WTF? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Which he immediately deleted. So, master, one sock, several IP socks and one sock or meat. You working on the SPI filing? --Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to work out the links. The Reference Desk seems to be a common item. 1 IP and 1 registered editor with tiny edit histories have both edited there, as has the master. Phew. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping me when you finish, and I'll add my two cents' worth. I'm happy to help, but am up to my eyes with a real-world task. --Drmargi (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I can relate. I've been trying to build a goat shed and move two aviaries since before Easter. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping me to if you need help collecting diffs, or starting the SPI, or when it is done. I'll have time from 10 pm EST on. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 22:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

They can't be the same guy. Bugs reported Desk Ref to ANI, AN3, and AIV so he's got to be a straight arrow. You guys need to find other stuff to do, and dat's dat. 221.181.104.12 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

How to deflect attention from yourself 101: Report your own sockpuppet. We'll let a Checkuser sort this one out. --Drmargi (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Drmargi: and Aussie, here is the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baseball Bugs. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 05:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice job! I'm finding the "it's a troll out to get me" argument more than a little disingenuous. --Drmargi (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I always wonder what the thought process is when a user and its sock converse with the other. It makes it even more suspicious when you're having a conversation between your accounts and use the same wording! If I ever socked (I'm not, never plan to), I'd make sure I stayed far away from each account, and gave each their own "personalities". (And once again, I'm not socking with this method! Haha) - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 06:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And at least don't operate two accounts at the same time using the same jargon. --Drmargi (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this?

I have a question about a topic that I know you are concerned about and about something that I know we agree on. Could you take a look at List of The Simpsons cast members? Especially the section on "Former cast members". It would seem to me that this section shouldn't exist. JOJ ^Hutton 17:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS:TV, fiction is always treated in the present, so we don't split into "current" and "former". The section needs to be integrated into other parts of the article somehow. I'm not sure how to do it in that article though. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I knew that you were familiar with the MOS and wanted to get your take before I changed it. Thanks.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well I made some changes and I got reverted a half hour later. Go figure. JOJ ^Hutton 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Australia

The notice on that article was specifically placed there in regards to File:Coat of arms of Australia.svg which is inaccurate and for quite some time had missing elements. It was not referring to Sodacan's new SVG which was only uploaded yesterday and is incredibly faithful to the official image. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit summary, the new SVG version is OK but since the article specifically deals with the coat of arms we should be using the most accurate version that we have. I note that Chipmunkdavis has made a similar comment. I agree with him that the new svg is "magnitudes better than the last, but is still not as good as the png". The new svg still has issues with fonts, scrollwork and shading. It's not "incredibly faithful to the official image". In the COA article we should use the most accurate COA, not some Wikipedian's interpretation. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia references

Hi, Thanks for your edit of my edit of the Paul Watson page. I thought that an entire article that was about an event mentioned in that page was ok. Apparently not and I still don't know why. I do trust you as an experienced editor and do not reject your edit, so I found another one. It is an interesting question, almost philosophical. DNA is self-referencing so how much can Wikipedia do the same? I have already come across the argument that an organisation is not a 'reliable source' when talking about itself so in a way does that mean that Wikipedia is in and of itself not a 'reliable source' when one article refers to another? The mind boggles! Cheers, Tobermory ^conferre — Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that all content added to Wikipedia is veriable by references to primary and (preferably) secondary sources. As a publication that summarises primary and secondary sources, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and cannot be used as a reference. Wikipedia articles can be linked to but they can't be used as sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

MythBusters Car Conundrum

I see you contribute to the show MythBusters, so I had a question about moving an episode to the special episodes page. If you see on the page MythBusters (2010 season)#Episode overview, episode SP14 "Car Conundrum" seems to be a "re-cut" or clip episode, which I do not think really counts as another episode. It is different from the Top 25 Moments that is above it and episodes similar to that because they include comments from the cast on the clips. I was considering moving it to the special episodes spot, and thought I should get an opinion, seeing that mentioning it on a four year old season talk page would most likely not get a response for a while. SAH (T) 20:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Car Conundrum is one of those episodes that aired during the normal season run but not as an episode listed in the official guide. It probably should be moved to the special episodes article. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

DK11040

I'm about ready to ask for administrator intervention with this user. Would you be willing to assist draft a report? Davejohnsan (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I thought that I already had drafted something but I can't find it right now. If you want to start I'm sure that I can find plenty to add. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm noticing this guy, too. Lots of odd little edits, some constructive, some not. He doesn't seem to want to discuss from what you're saying, and doesn't know the meaning of edit summary. I haven't seen anything too problematic yet, but he's worrying. --Drmargi (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, for now he's stopped uploading images that are copyvios or for which has falsely claimed authorship. That was problematic. Today he changed all of the prod codes for NCIS and I had to revert the changes in all 11 articles. I find myself having to watch his edits like a hawk. Many of the edits, like inexplicably removing images are a concern, and so on. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about what I'm seeing, minus the pictures. I haven't run across that yet. I've seen him largely at Person of Interest and CSI, and I noticed the penchant for production code changes, too. We'll keep an eye on him. --Drmargi (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

He has made some productive edits—I certainly don't want to withhold credit from him for that—but when he does something wrong, he doesn't seem to want to listen to others, no matter how much they plead or reason with him. And since many of the problematic edits are recurring, it's becoming progressively annoying as time passes. Oddly enough, I don't remember what infuriated me at the time I first wrote this, but I have a feeling that will return soon. Davejohnsan (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at the moment there are a few editors just like him and it's confusing trying to follow them all around and fix their screwups. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you had any issues with him/her changing names of writers and directors? He seems to do that a lot. --Drmargi (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, I see it all the time. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Davejohnsan: I think e have to act. Dk11040 has now taken to asserting ownership over articles.[1][2] We'll have to go back over his edit history to get examples of his earlier work and explain how when he finally gets something right, he immediately moves on to get something else wrong. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That should be no problem, but I'm going to be very busy the next few days. Do you want to use my sandbox to gather links? Davejohnsan (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Naming

So if the section in the 2009 season is called Myth Evolution, shouldn't the same be done in the 2007 season, per discovery's website? Because currently it is MythBusters (2007 season)#Episode 87 – "Myth Evolution". I will change it to match the reference. SAH (T) 14:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Great work on picking that up. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 2 Style change?

Not to be a jerk but I just wondered why the sudden style change for this page? Aragorn8354 (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you mean by a style change? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I was refering to the change in color from black to white lettering in the Infobox? Aragorn8354 (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That was simply to improve contrast. Black text on a dark background is difficult to read. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a list of color codes and field titles somewhere I can use to familiarize myself with to do better editing? Aragorn8354 (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If you follow the link I provided in my last post to WP:CONTRAST you'll find a couple of links,[3][4] but there are some disclaimers. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox images

Can you explain Lua code, or point me to a discussion about it? Just want to read up on it and how it changes what we've been doing. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a fairly detailed explanation at WP:LUA. The recent change to {{Infobox television season}} was just to add the InfoboxImage module, which adds some flexibility as to how infobox images are handled. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. I'll read up about it there. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

re Thanks

AussieLegend M'man, I know it all too well! Overlinking, trivia, speculation, inability to discriminate between useful and useless content, convoluted and verbose writing style, article bloat, can't remember how to use ellipses, and so on. I've had to take a few pages off my watchlist just to avoid them. That's why I thanked you, because *I* wasn't the one to have to deal with it. Ha! I was on the verge of opening a RFC for competence a while ago, but gave up on it, because I just didn't want to get involved that mess at the time. (Unrelated: I normally would have replied at my own talk page, but I thought it better to split up the conversation.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For the help with the long-ass IP's issues. Wylie and I kept trying to step away, and his attempts to drag us in just got more and more frantic. I appreciate what you did to calm things down. --Drmargi (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of MythBusters pilot episodes

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of MythBusters pilot episodes, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. SAJ (T) 08:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Top Gear Overview

Hello, regarding the changes I made.

1. Shorter date format is acceptable in tables according to Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Date_formats.
2. Changing N/a to n/a is not a relevant point in a revert comment, esp. since it is in fact a lower case 'n' in the template itself.
3. Incorrect bolding... where? Changing forced bold formats to row headers?
4. Formatting issues... where? The heaps of redundant unnecessary formatting code I removed? Is there anything actually wrong with the display of the grid as I left it?
5. etc... Any other weasel words you can think of to support your reversion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.80.43 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 June 2014‎ (UTC

Regarding your changes:

1. Shorter date formats are inconsistent with the way we present series overview tables across the project. It's also inconsistent with both MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:DATERET. When an article has evolved using one date format, it's inappropriate to arbitrarily change formats. We normally use {{start date}} and {{end date}} for season/series start and end dates. They are missing in this article but should be added.
2. Changing N/a to n/a is a pointless exercise
3. The cells you changed were not row headers. The row headers are the first (coloured) cells, not the second (series number) cells
4. Much of the "heaps of redundant unnecessary formatting code" was there for MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT compliance. That should not have been removed.

As I asked in my edit summaries, please discuss this on the article's talk page before making the changes again. You've made a bold edit, it's been reverted so now it's time to discuss per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please note that until consensus for your edits has been achieved, the status quo prevails, per WP:STATUSQUO. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note, I have started a discussion at Talk:List of Top Gear episodes#Series overview table. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

1. This was really the point of the edit; the rest was just tidying up. I find it easier to read twenty rows of dates when the d, mmm and yyyy line up. This also lines up all of the column widths more evenly. MOS:DATEUNIFY lists the shorter dates as acceptable in chapter 2.3.1.1.
2. Exactly why mentioning it just increased the inflammatory nature of the revert comment.
3. Geometrically that is true, but informationally, the header of each row is the series title. It is not necessary that the row header has to be the left-most cell.
4. Very interesting. I read MOS:DTT from your revert comment and I did not realise that it is now mandatory to use the scope parameter to identify row and col headers. What a brilliant application for the scope parameter, and so clearly stated that it is now mandatory to use it for this purpose. /sarcasm.

Thanks for introducing me to WP:BRD. I would like to draw your attention to point #2 in chapter 2.2.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.80.43 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 June 2014‎‎ (UTC

There's little point discussing here. Please make further comment at Talk:List of Top Gear episodes#Series overview table. Regarding "#2 in chapter 2.2." of WP:BRD, please see "or just ask that they offer their edit for discussion on the talk page", which is what I did.[5] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

An explanation

Hi.

I wanted to say sorry for reverting Special:Diff/613145978/prev. When I viewed the diff, only the upper part of diff showed up. I later realized that User:Werieth also removed three more images. (I had to press CTRL+SHIFT+R.)

Sorry.

Best regards,
14:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not a problem. Thanks for leeting me know what happened. Be aware that Werieth has listed Windows XP at WP:NFCC --AussieLegend (✉) 14:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor weirdness

Hey Aussie, I noticed that the title at Template talk:Infobox television looks weird. I see Template_talk:Infobox television instead of Template talk:Infobox television. (The addition of an underscore and italics). In this version of the page it displays fine, then in the following edit here it seems to get wonky with the addition of the various tables. Anyhow, not a blame thing, I'm just curious if you know how to fix it. I'm having trouble spotting the problem meself. Thanks! (Also, I thought Favre wrote up all those templates and I praised him instead of you. Sorry! Good work! ) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(TPS)The reason the title is being displayed that way is in section "Contradictory parameters" template "Infobox television" is being invoked as examples and that template sets the display title of the page it is being used on to be italics. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, awesome! Thanks GP. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I did make those mock ups..... (awkwarddddd) I think what you are referring to. The bottom two, yes? Haha. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Let's just assume that I have my head completely up my ass about what's happening on that page, allow me to give you ALL a "GREAT JOB, GUYS!" and please let me out of this social weirdness gracefully. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's all good. Also, didn't know we could use the ping template as "yo". That's great. Let's just hope the new parameters get into the template! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I need another opinion on a referencing dispute

An editor on Girl Meets World claims to be using imdb pro as a source of future ep info. I am not familiar enough to see if this accurate. Your help would be appreciated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The citations he was using were to the standard version of imdb that we all see. He was also using a wiki. Neither constitute reliable sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I wan't sure about IMDB pro as I haven't used it and thought that maybe a pro user had a private portal of some sort to validated content. Is there a shortcut defined to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/FAQ yet? I would like to use that in the future and am finding that page hard to find. It looks useful but hardly used [6]. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking yesterday that the page needs a shortcut, so I have created WP:TVFAQ. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Lost Girl (season 4) Blu-ray cover image

Could not figure out how to add info for the license, similar as the image info for previous seasons. 'Hope you can come to the rescue and prevent it from being deleted as threatened. Thank you! Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

DVD and Blu-ray cover art is non-free and can't be uploaded to commons. It has to be uploaded to Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

??? I thought I had uploaded it to Wikipedia. It was my first time uploading anything to this website. Do I need to do it again? And if I do, do I do it with Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you'll have to upload it again. Let me know when you've done so and I'll fix any of the mistakes that the File Upload Wizard makes. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I re-uploaded it. The wizard changed the file name, but the image in the infobox is the same as before. Thanks for your help! Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Are preview dates the original airdates?

Hey AL, interested in your thoughts here: [7] IP user asserts that preview dates are "original airdates". That's superficially logical, but is not common practice. A sneak preview is typically not billed as a premiere, but the Infobox "first aired" parameter doesn't exclude previews. And more importantly, my instinct is that Wikipedia doesn't decide when a series "first airs", the studio does. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that I look a little more closely, I think the contributor I'm bumping heads with (Static IP - geolocates to Longview, Texas) might be Christopher10006 based on

these two edits where they inexplicably change the blocked user's display name formatting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the difference between a preview and and a premiere? If the preview only shows part of the episode then no, it's not the original airdate but, if it's a full episode, then why wouldn't it be the original airdate? As for our old friend, there seem to be some similarities in the editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Nickelodeon, for example, typically promotes a series premiere on Day X (TMNT's premiere date was September 29, 2012). They sometimes air the same episode a day or a few days before Day X, and call them "sneak previews" (TMNT aired the first episode on September 28, 2012, and also on September 29, 2012). Both airings are reflected at Zap2It, but if you look at a site like Amazon (crappy reference, I know) [8] they are considering September 29 the original airdate. I don't know if this is printed on the DVD, but it raises a question as to which of these dates to use. The dates as reported by the TV guides? (Completely reasonable) or the dates reported by the content owner, for whom we rely on other information such as Starring roles and credit ordering, etc. Whatever the expectation, I think it should be clarified in the infobox, but I say that about everything. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

At List of The Penguins of Madagascar episodes we resolved to list the sneak preview date as the original airdate, even though the series didn't officially premiere until four months later, since the preview date was the date that the series actually aired. Possibly the best way to resolve the problem would be to list both dates, noting that one is the sneak preview and one is the series premiere. That said, this is something that probably needs to be discussed at WT:TV since it obviously affects a lot of programs. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

True dat. I'll do that soonish. Thankx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No COI

Whether you think it is helpful for me to return to the Edward J. Walsh talk page or not is also irrelevant. I come back here due to your obstinacy in this rather minor matter. That is, you still have not engaged in the actual issue at hand which is my challenge of your "concern." You may have a concern, but that is not enough. You have to at least name the concern (and it has to be more than "you are related"). I mentioned in my previous note that as a new editor I made some editing errors. I realize those errors and have notified you how I intend to prevent that from happening again. Since none of the remaining text is a problem, therefore, the issue seems to be resolved. So, I am merely pointing out that you have not substantiated your concern and even if one stretched the case for concern, I have adequately addressed it. You may be a good editor and a fine example of a Wikipedia community member, but it is possible for you to make a mistake and/or allow your emotions to get the better of you as I suggest is happening here. Your behavior also appears to be one from a position of bias and bullying which is antithetical to the Wiki project. Kindly, then, please either remove the COI or please have another, unbiased editor review this page as soon as possible and render a judgment. As a new editor, I am rather appalled at your lack of empathy, understanding, and your Draconian approach. -- Spinfisher (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have quite clearly stated that, as the child of the subject of the article, you have made edits that raise COI concerns. I did this as recently as 3 days ago at the article's talk page. Concerns about your edits have been explained in edit summaries and you have been warned on your talk page. I have explained to you that somebody else needs to come to the page to assess the article, so returning to complain about the tag achieves absolutely nothing. There's nothing I can do unless I revert all your changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism at Bonkers

I'd like to request that some action can be taken for vandalism done on the article List of Bonkers episodes and occasionally the main article associated with it. An Anonymous editor who hopped from IP numbers 86.132.21.30, 86.155.243.100, 86.132.23.237, 86.132.16.123 has been vandalising the page since May 30th. If possible could you semi-protect the page? Thank you. Deltasim (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so I can't protect the page. You can request page protection at WP:RFPP. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Mixed to negative

I despise "critical response was mixed to ____" phrasing. If I find out who started that crap, I'm going to hit him in the face with a fire hydrant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Bloated cast tables

What is it with IPs and tables? Between the overly elaborate elimination tables for all the competition shows to the huge cast tables that articulate appearances episode by episode, I'm at my limit. I just reverted bloated tables from 15 seasons of CSI designed to enumerate how many and which episodes each of the main cast appeared in. You're left with huge green bars and the occasional gap noting a missed episode, a table that's hard for screen readers to use, and which makes the page micro mini on an iPad, and the sense of "so what?" in response to the tiny bit of information these tables provide. You work on NCIS an a number of other popular shows -- what's the thinking regarding these tables? Clearly, I think they're a waste of space and effort; we don't need appearance counts, period. What's your thinking? --Drmargi (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I tolerate cast tables summarising appearances in a cast article but even some of those are stretching it. (See this) We're supposed to use prose and I don't see why we need tables everywhere else. Some are just ridiculous.[9] Unfortunately it's hard to get rid of the tables as other editors keep putting them back in. I keep meaning to eliminate the ridiculous tables in the NCIS season articles but I'm sure somebody else will just put them back. I'm totally against episode appearance counts as they are often wrong. Maybe this should be raised at WT:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I need to get a little more involved in WT:TV. I agree about the tables, especially the need to raise them on their noticeboard; those two you linked are beyond ridiculous. I also have an issue with all the mention of "special guest stars" from editors who can't differentiate cast status (main v. guest) and billing -- SGS is just an honorific. --Drmargi (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sydney Location Distances

G'day. I replaced the road distances in the Location panel for the Sydney article with real distances. You reverted my edit of the Sydney page with the comment "we use road distances". Is there some stated Wikipedia policy that road distances rather than real distances should be used when giving locations? If there is, I am not able to find it. It's no skin off my nose but if we are going to use road distances, I think this should probably be indicated explicitly in the infobox.

Ordinary Person (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a long-standing consensus that WP:AUSTRALIA articles use road distances. The requirement to use road distances is stated in the instructions for {{Infobox Australian place}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry.

That was stupid. I should've undone the IP. Apoligies to you. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The 7D response

For the part with Dopey, he just makes various sounds since he doesn't speak. The parenthesis was placed around the "voiced by [insert voice actor here]" is because every other show that has pages on this website does it. Some episodes that recently aired had a TBA added to it because nobody who has watched the show has added the plot to those episodes yet. The 7D membership was to spice up their bios just like how I mentioned the fact about Grim Gloom. The Crystal Ball and Magic Mirror should be in the heading called "recurring characters" so that there would be any other characters not in either category listed to appear there. I can't remember anything else, but did I leave anything out of this discussion? --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

BBT Season 7

If you have a sec, can you take a look over at The Big Bang Theory (season 7)? A user keeps trying to expand out the plot with some very minutiae, insignificant detail, and they haven't gotten the hint from me that it is just that. I'm also at 3 reverts. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

His edits took the summary out to 269 words, which is far too large, so I've reverted and warned the editor as he is clearly edit-warring. WP:PLOTBLOAT is part of MOS:FILM and doesn't apply to TV episode summaries. It says summaries should be 400-700 words. I've directed him to MOS:TV and {{Episode list}} instructions which say 100-200 words. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. After a while, the guidelines and policies start to get jumbled together on where they do and do not apply. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Jessie

Thanks for correcting that edit. I stand corrected and feel terrible for doing what I did. I guess I was reading it over too quick to have missed that. I'm sure to be careful with that next time I check through a source to make sure the information is there. - Jabrona (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Stuff happens. None of us are perfect. That's why Wikipedia has more than one editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks again. - Jabrona (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I did? But the images are wrong

Hello. you posted this

Information icon Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Dance Moms (season 4), even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 18:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I really didn't mean to make a test edit but um....I was trying to switch the images on Dance Moms season 3 and Season 4 pages because they are mixed up The one on the season 3 page is the Season 4 promo and the one on the Season 4 is the Season 3 promo. So mind switching them because they are incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.238.102 (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The source file for File:Season 4 promotional poster for Dance Moms.png was http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/10/29/dance-moms-season-4.PNG. Note the date "2013/10/29" and the image title "dance-moms-season-4.PNG". This would appear to indicate that the files are in the correct articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I keep messaging you but honestly it is the season 3. If you look here it is is a season 3 related picturehttp://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130218224031/dancemoms/images/e/e0/Season-three-itunes-episode-cover.jpeg Also if you go to iTunes and type in dance moms, you will see the season 4 cover is a dead ringer for the picture you claim is for season 3. I don't mean to argue but I think the article got it mixed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.220.203 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Roman888

Just a quick heads up: Roman888 editing with an IP is back on Kitchen Nightmares. I waited until his usual active tome passed, then reverted, so we'll see what happens next. --Drmargi (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Dance Moms Season 4 photo

I'm sorry I keep messaging you but honestly it is the season 3. If you look here it is is a season 3 related picturehttp://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130218224031/dancemoms/images/e/e0/Season-three-itunes-episode-cover.jpeg Also if you go to iTunes and type in dance moms, you will see the season 4 cover is a dead ringer for the picture you claim is for season 3. I don't mean to argue but I think the article got it mixed up. I don't know what the subject of the article was but I know that the images are mixed up. Just please see that the official iTunes cover art for season 4 is clearly the image you think is for season 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.220.203 (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikias are not reliable sources. I'm afraid that what editors think happened is also not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Drmargi

You look like a level-headed person and I believe you are an administrator or moderator. This editor has a history of deleting other people's posts and accusing them of being someone else. Can you make sure this person is controlled and taken to task for deleting and disparaging other editors? Much thanks. 58.168.101.160 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Give it a rest, Roman. Find something constructive to do. --Drmargi (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've file an SPI report at [10]. Hopefully that will nip this in the bud. --Drmargi (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, he's blocked, and seems to have slunk back to where he came from. Until the next time. --Drmargi (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As I indicated at ANI, I don't think that blocking one IP is going to stop him. If only it would. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be nice. But at least, as someone pointed out at ANI, he's under wider scrutiny now. And if that's him doing the editing, he's finally settled down to something constructive, if incomplete at the moment. I left a message on his talk page referring him to a more complete source for viewership numbers. --Drmargi (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

MythBusters specials

I was was reading your discription of how episodes are classified on the 2014 season talk page. I was wondering if the notes explaining it was a special are really necessary. Most of the time where it says that it is a special, the word is in the title. And recently they refer to lots of episodes as specials. It seems like a pretty loose parameter. It makes the episode list even more confusing. Without reading that on the talk page, most people will not understand the difference. SAJ (T) 15:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Some of the special episodes do have special in the title but others don't, which is why it's necessary to specify in the ShortSummary field. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel like it does not serve a purpose. Yeah, it may contain the word special, but that is thrown around a lot. There are many recent episodes that say "special" but have not had this note added. It is unfinished and does not always mean it is a special. I think it just confuses people more, since there are two classifications of special. Someone just glancing at the list will not understand. Special can just mean when they decide to focus on a specific topic, like maybe household disasters or commercial myths. It does not necessarily mean it is a special.SAJ (T) 16:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

As editors we don't have the right to ignore reliable sources; to do so ignores both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If they say it's a special episode, that's how we have to treat it. It's a bit confusing, many of the episode titles that you are changing in articles were correct a few years ago. With two revisions of the website, Discovery has been changing episode titles and descriptions, sometimes for the better but sometimes not. It was far more clear a few years ago. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I just think that it seems a little unreliable since they may just say whatever they like in the episode. Maybe if it was kept updated that it would be fine. But it is only done for some of them. More recently there have been episodes that have met the requirement of "special" being stated, yet recently it has not been noted. Also as a side note, I noticed you reverted the number change edits on the season pages. What happened is that I was in a rush and clicked save on a few articles. As I left my computer, the edit I made on the 2004 season page was not saved due to an error. On that page I had removed the "SP" from the Christmas Special since it is now it the episode guide on Discovery's website. That would have made the other edits make sense. I am currently trying to fixing the episode numbers according to the episode guide. Sorry for the confusion. Also on the 2003 talk page I was not aware that you could not edit a comment. Thank you for informing me. I also saw that you removed the overall ep. number from the scientist special. It was only there because that episode is "SP11" which aligns to where it aired in the series. Therefore I thought an overall ep. number was warranted. But since not, maybe the "SP11" should be removed to show it is not part of the normal season. Sorry about the number of topics in this reply, but I wanted to address them all at once. SAJ (T) 05:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hotel Hell

OK, I am very confused. Please help me to understand. I wrote my own summary of Season 2 Episode 1 and it was reverted because I had to use cited sources. Fine. So I found and used a couple of sentences from a cited newspaper source and was thanked for that contribution. Now for Season 2 Episode 2 I found and used a couple of sentences from another cited newspaper source (with full citation given) and was reverted. If I can't write my own summary and can't cite from a newspaper, what am I to do? Please advise me. I'm sort of new at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake Oil Salesman (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why your original summary was reverted. The editor who did so appears to have misunderstood the hidden warning. Summaries added after an episode airs that reflect the summary don't need citations. His comment "the hidden note says in part2Uncited content will be reverted" is wrong. The summary says that future episode content that is not supported by a citation will be reverted, but your summary was added after the episode aired. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I see now that a third admin has reverted the Season 2 Episode 1 cited source. I am done trying to write summaries in this area, the rules seem to be arbitrarily applied.Snake Oil Salesman (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It was reverted because it was a copyright violation. Content must be written in your own words, not copied from other websites. I've restored the summary from this edit, as it should never have been removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Buying Naked

Thanks for sorting out Buying Naked: rereading the talk page I'm reminded why I couldn't find it on the tlc website. PamD 09:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hotel Hell

HI - you do know that removed the hidden note, right? Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of that. The hidden notes, which I added to the article after removing a copyvio,[11], do not need to remain once a valid summary is added. They are used to head off additions of unsourced content added prior to the episode airing and/or copyvios. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice that you'd added it. Thanks for the explanation. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

King of Queens

I noticed you changed my edit on the cast of King of Queens Lisa Rieffel is not a main character she is in only 5 episodes. There are many characters more main then her.JohnGormleyJG (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)JohnGormleyJG

She was credited as a main cast member during season 1 so inclusion in the infobox is required in accordance with MOS:TV#Cast information. This is not uncommon. Please see Talk:The Big Bang Theory/FAQ for a similar case regarding Sara Gilbert's inclusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes but Jerry Stiller, Patton Oswalt and Victor Williams should be ahead of her as they are main in seasons 1-9JohnGormleyJG (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)JohnGormleyJG

No, we list cast in original credit order, as explained in the instructions for {{Infobox television}}, which say "cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show". In the pilot episode the order was:
Kevin James
Leah Remini
Lisa Rieffel
Patton Oswalt
Larry Romano
Victor Williams
Jerry Stiller. Per template instructions, that's the order in which they should be listed. After that Nicole Sullivan was added, followed by Gary Valentine, so they are added in that order. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:TV#Series Finale revisited.
Message added 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Aussie, if you get a moment, I would appreciate your input at this discussion, though obviously it's not required. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Please ask right away next time

If something I'm doing is irritating you, I'd appreciate it if you spoke up as soon as possible instead of suddenly bringing it up in the middle of a discussion after many occurrences. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Had you not started your post with "Sigh" I wouldn't have raised it at all. -_AussieLegend (✉) 14:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to pinging your username each time in that discussion. You should have asked me to stop right away if it annoyed you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I know what you were referring to and I was willing to put up with it until the snarky comment. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of cast tables

Aussie, I just started this discussion on another user's talk page after someone added a bloated cast table counting individual episode appearances. I know you work hard on NCIS, which also suffers from table bloat, and thought this might interest you if you'd care to weigh in. As I'm sure I've said before, we seem to have a cadre of fanboy/fangirl IP's who love to build these elaborate tables, which I think are really rather fancrufty as well as something that consumes a lot of real estate on the page while providing precious little information. Anyway, I'm on the process of removing the tables from the CSI season articles, and want to get a bit of conversation on this going on the subject. It's getting out of hand. --Drmargi (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Marido en alquiler

Hi, you do not understand is that, at the end of a soap opera, space or time to let that soap opera, is succeeded or preceded by another telenovela A telenovela is not a television series. The aforementioned telenovela gave before the 9 in the evening, after the schedule was changed and was broadcast at 8 pm. But you insist on comparing this with another TV, that's fine. Then I leave it, I do not want to argue about this.--Damián (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but a telenovela is a television series. You are still talking of scheduling, which is not what the two fields are used for, as I explained on your talk page. There seems to be a fundamental language problem here and I'm not sure how to resolve it. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Telenovelas are television series ?, just today I hear that. Well anyway, so let's leave it better.--Damián (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Only I tell you what, since you claim to know much about telenovelas. In telenovela over 400 actors involved, it is unnecessary to explain that participation is everyone, because there are too many actors. This is not about a single series as Austin & Ally, In which only 12 or 13 are involved as actors. Recommend to investigate either trying telenovelas took two years editing wikipedia articles here in telenovelas, and has always been done in the normal way, without adding many descriptions to each character, that is called bigotry. Also there are no references of all these actors in internet.--Damián (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

In this respect, telenovelas are no different to any other TV program. We list credited starring characters and significant recurring characters. Most TV programs have hundreds of different people appearing in them, but we don't list them all. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

For in the style manual is not listed, you need to add strength to the descriptions of each character. And as I said before, in a soap opera actors appear too, so it is unnecessary to place a description of each. If you have so much interest in that each character has descriptions, why not add them yourself ?. In the case of soap operas should create a list of characters, to add special there, recurring appearances among others. In telenovela items long has stopped using descriptions by the number of actors in a soap opera. By adding descriptions for each character, many users will want and ips; do this. Or worse, they will want to do this. Or this disaster did here. For these reasons, it has long been decided not to add descriptions to the characters. With putting the name of the actor and the character is enough. For example this. --Damián (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can't justify adding a character description, then the character should probably not be listed at all. Main characters certainly should have descriptions, but they don't have to be overly detailed. Significant recurring characters should have at least a brief description. This is the way we try to do it for all TV series. What we don't do is spit our dummies when somebody provides constructive criticism, as you did with this edit. That sort of thing is disruptive at best and bordering on outright vandalism. If you do that again I'll have no trouble taking this up at WP:ANI. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If telenovelas television series were only few actors involved, and transmit two chapters per month. But you know what I will not ?, By explaining anything, believe what you want. And again I say, I will not add anything just to please him, I see you owned the item and any editing going to look, so why dont you add descriptions, if such interest you have in that ?. Many actors and describe each one is excessive. I know more than you about articles and soap operas have nothing like a television series..--Damián (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that you're having trouble understanding how we write television articles on the English Wikipedia. Please, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and if there is something you don't understand about how we write articles ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. As I said at Template talk:Infobox television#Motto there seems to be a fundamental language problem and hopefully somebody there can communicate with you in Spanish. I speak only English so Ii don't think I can help you, as much of what you say doesn't make sense to me. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the template you've placed in the article already cited, if you're not going to add descriptions of the characters, because you put a template for others to do work that does not want to do?. There is a manual of style, but there are not said to be necessarily add descriptions. And as I said before, that adds a template for others to do the work that you do not want to do, if that seems fun ?.--Damián (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've already said, significant recurring characters should at least have a brief description. This is to provide at least some context for the reader. If the person doesn't warrant a description, then they likely don't warrant inclusion. In a series with only 141 episodes, 47 "significant" recurring characters are unusual, even in a telenovela. 21 of the individuals listed don't even have articles, here or on the Spanish Wikipedia. People might be significant in one or two episodes, but that doesn't make them significant in relation to the series, which is what we look at when determining who to include. Note that MOS:TVCAST says, "Not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That does not solve my question. You added a template for others to do the work you will not do, because that does not seem right, if you do not want to add descriptions of the characters, because they want others to do for you ?.--Damián (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The template was added because it needs to be cleaned up to required standards, not because I want it to be cleaned up. I've already done a lot of cleanup on the article. If I had my way that whole section would probably be gone. Please note that {{imdbname}} is not for use outside the "External links" section. This edit was inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Leave me alone, you've got stubborn, stay with your stupid article. Not want to talk to you, what you think you want.--Damián (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You're the one who came here, and now you're editing disruptively at Marido en alquiler, which is why I've had to warn you again. I am trying to help you understand how the English Wikipedia treats television articles. I'm not trying to fight you but you're not making it easy. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A Vida da Gente

Here if you do nothing, right?. But if you have lots of time to bother me, and others do what they please.--Damián (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, bit I don't understand what you're trying to say. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you doing?! why do you have to agree with him? His edits is always wrong and messed up and he's just doing a lot of rules that has too much limitations! This is so disgusting and disappointing! :( -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case he is correct. As I indicated in my edit summary, Wikipedia is not a TV guide and MOS:TV specifies that only broadcasts from English language countries should be included. These points have been discussed at length and have wide consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So other countries will never be allowed forever? Okay. I am so very disappointed and saddened for this big mess and I know you will continue agreeing with him.
Corruption is everywhere and freedom of editing will be destroyed forever thanks to Damián80. -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Corruption has nothing to do with it. You are free to edit but, like all of us, we are expected to follow policies, guidelines and wide consensus. Unfortunately, very few of the telenovela articles seem to do that. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

But it was still all Damián80's fault! I am not free to edit when Damián80 is always there. You should be still careful of that user!
His edits are all wrong and messed up and is always obsessed with reverting. He always remove or hide any correct informations and references. He doesn't let anyone to edit or correct any article. He also creates rules and policies that limits and disrupts the freedom of information. He even thinks that everything in Wikipedia is not free! He also wants to be the president of Wikipedia!! I was a victim of that negative Damián80 by thinking that I am his threat or enemy or I am always bothering him, so sometimes I have been tired of editing and correcting any telenovela articles. Please stop Damián80 at all costs and give everyone a justice! :'(

(talk page stalker)How about instead of placing blame and attacking a user, you try to work together towards improving the content of telenovla pages within the guidelines? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

NO! I don't want to be associated with Damian80!! He dislikes everyone, and no matter what happens he will always disagree with everyone and undo revert everything into his own version! He's too unfair! -ElNiñoMonstruo (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Because you thanked me

AussieLegend, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I sincerely hope that you enjoy your continued improvement of this inspiring encyclopedia! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX!

18:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A sus ordenes / at your service

Ping me if I can be of assistance in future Spanish language issues, and also in deciphering fractured English. My Spanish has LOTS of mistakes and isn't advanced enough for deep philosophical debates, but I can explain the basics adequately. Paulah88 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC

Hey, thanks for your input at the Format/Genre RFC. Do you think there's any value to adding an option 4A, with the only difference being that we keep the format parameter and attempt to establish a clear list of acceptable formats? Frankly I get the impression that Format covers a lot of ground and bleeds into genre a lot and I don't think we need the parameter if it's going to be perpetually confusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you've pretty much got it covered as is. Adding another option is just going to make it hard for editors to choose which is best. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Okeedokes. Grazie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, you've made your point.

I'm sorry for splitting articles and adding crossover episodes against regulations. It's obvious I need to take a sabbatical for a while. StewieBaby05 (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that you've since made this reversion I find our "apology" disingenuous at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Series overview links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"links are supposed to pint [sic] to sections in this article"

Where does it say that? It doesn't make any sense. There's already a TOC. It doesn't need another one. If they're going to be linked (which isn't necessary), why not go directly to the season page, instead of going down the page and then clicking the page link? --Musdan77 (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is just the way we do it. Series overview tables have been discussed at WT:TV. They are an overview of the episode lists, and form a pseudo table of contents for the article. The individual season sections contain the links to the season articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought you might come back with a lame "This is just the way we do it". That's not good enough. And you didn't give a link to the discussion at WT:TV. I did a search. The only thing I found was the discussion about the upcoming season. It basically comes down to personal preference. But, I don't know how you cannot agree with me on this. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's a good faith response, not. Have a look at any of numerous articles using series overview tables and you will see that the tables summarise the rest of the article, noting the number of episodes within the season, the start and end dates for each season listed in the article and often DVD releases for each of those seasons. If you look at the code you will see that, with very few exceptions, the links in the series overview tables point to the seasons within that article, not to external articles. It doesn't make sense to make a table about the article content and then link elsewhere instead of the relevant content. Of course, linking elsewhere isn't possible with articles that don't have individual season articles and it would be inconsistent to link to the LoE article in some instances but other articles in other instances, so we continue to link within the article for consistency. Regarding not being able to find any discussion, I don't think you looked too hard. I very quickly found a discussion titled, surprise surprise, "Series Overview tables". Granted, the actual discussion was at the MOS, but the discussion WAS linked from WT:TV and there are more discussions around. Given your "lame" comment I don't feel disposed to go searching though. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

1) I know that many lists do that, but that doesn't mean it's right or necessary. 2) I shouldn't have to search for a discussion that you said there was. You should have given the link. 3) That's the one I was talking about that I found. It's not titled "Series Overview tables". And it's not about that. And if you'd looked, you'd see that my name is there several times, so I know about that discussion. 4) The Overview is an overview of the series, not the list page. 5) Please watch your attitude. That's not how I would expect an editor like you to act. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

1. That so many lists do it clearly indicates that is how the community feels it should best be handled. It's not as if it is at one or two articles; it's something done in thousands.
2. I expected that you would assume good faith. You're not a new editor and a link to a specific discussion that I remember but don't have at hand because I've made 7,500 edits in the 7 months since then. That's as many edits as you've made in the last 13 months. Tell me without searching, in what edit did you move a paragraph to the ratings section of an article in July last year?
3. I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. The discussion at WT:TV, which is where I initially pointed you, is most definitely titled "Series Overview tables" - the link is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 17#Series Overview tables. The discussion at the MOS, which is not where I pointed you, is titled Series overview tables and the like. Even it contains "Series overview tables" in the heading. Your name is not "name is there several times". It's not even there once. That's not the discussion that you said you found. You said, "The only thing I found was the discussion about the upcoming season". You're confusing the WT:TV/archived MOS discussion with either this or this.
4. The series overview is related to the content on the page and is a pseudo TOC, as I explained so, as I also explained, it doesn't make sense to make a table about the article content and then link elsewhere instead of the relevant content. The individual sections contain the season article links, which I've also explained.
5. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone - Please don't have the audacity to criticise the attitude of others when you come to their talk pages and, after answering you in good faith, you attack them by calling their response "lame".[12] That is not something that is acceptable from any editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

1. That doesn't matter -- unless it specifically says it in an MOS.
2. See #5 (and think about it from my point of view)
3. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 17#Series Overview tables and click on the link that's there. That's where the confusion comes. As for the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/Archive_3#Series_overview_tables_and_the_like, I really don't think I can take the time to read that very long section.
4. As I tried to explain, it's called "Series overview" for a reason. I don't know how many editors agree with you, but I know that others disagree with you (and agree with me) on that.
5. This all started with you reverting my edit, and not giving a verifiable reason in the edit summary. So I had to ask you on your talk page. I was hoping for a link to an MOS (preferably) or (at least) a link to a discussion that explains it. But instead, I get (no need to quote it again) something that anyone like me (meaning someone who's not a newbie) would call a totally lame response (good faith or not). That's not a personal attack (read the page that you linked to -- and give me a freaking break!), it's just telling it like it is. I'm sorry if you can't take it, but I won't apologize for saying it. Even if my attitude was wrong, that's not an excuse for yours -- especially from someone who's been around long enough to know better. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

2. done - You're still at fault here and excuses don't change that. Failure to acknowledge that and continuing to insist that the other person is at fault doesn't help. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Really? Yeah, I just came to your talk page to attack you. Right. Do you hear yourself? You sound like an inexperienced editor who doesn't know how to get along with others. This animosity doesn't help either one of us. Btw, did you do what I asked in #3? --Musdan77 (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that your second post started with an attack I have to assume that. I was responding to you as one experienced editor to another, and there was no justification for your response. I suggest you read your own words and take your own advice. I did what you suggested in #3 well before you suggested it. When you said "The only thing I found was the discussion about the upcoming season" I was puzzled, so I did an archive search at WT:TV. That's how I found the link that I posted in this post. When I saw the discussion wasn't on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television I did an archive search there and found the thread. You apparently missed that step. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You're still saying I "attacked" you (??), so you still must not have read WP:NPA#WHATIS. If anything, it might be considered uncivil, but not a personal attack. Even if it was, you didn't follow what it says at WP:NPA#Responding_to_personal_attacks. Accusing someone of attacking (especially when they didn't) is just as bad as not assuming good faith. And I suggest you reread what I said in #5. If you still feel the same way, then you have lost any respect I ever had in you. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it incredible that you're still trying to justify your inappropriate actions by blaming the victim. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Now you're a "victim"?? OMG! What's incredible is that you're so stubbornly short-sighted from being hurt [boohoo] from a short sentence (or maybe one particular word -- that was justified), you can't (or refuse to) see the complete picture -- or to acknowledge that you did anything wrong. Man up! --Musdan77 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of Regular Show characters

Hey mang, could you add List of Regular Show characters to your watchlist for a little bit? There's some kid who keeps adding the same poorly-written POV content about how "boring" one of the characters is. (ex: [13]) I've attempted to explain on his talk page, but he's shouty and apparently unreachable. Danke! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Done --AussieLegend (✉) 06:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Danke. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment requested, but not required

Hey AL, Sorry to blow up your talk page today! I made a bold edit at Template:Infobox television a few days ago and announced it at WikiProject Television here. Basically, I've reworded the "last_aired" template docs to shift "last_aired" from meaning "cancelled". I suspect that you and I might not quite agree on this point, but that's totally cool because it's from our (presumably friendly) differences of opinion that we can get the right thing going at the project, and I do value your knowledge and opinions, and I will probably never call you a negative name, because I try to keep shit civil. Soooo, I am soliciting your thoughts and criticisms, although my solicitation could mean a lot of headbutting on the issue.

The impetus for my bold change is to prevent series from being listed as "present" in perpetuity. This is something you and I have discussed before, but the issue seemed to be more about how Wikipedia shouldn't describe these series as "ended" or "cancelled" without proper referencing. That's fine, and I understand that, but we also have a problem with animated series that never officially end, and we're stuck with our pitchforks in the mud chasing the kids off the property and reverting their edits because they don't have proof that the series has been cancelled. We've got too much shit to do here to be buggered with that stuff.

I think that "present" is an odd word for the TV WikiProject, as it is ephemeral. Did any new episodes air today? No. Did any air this week? No. Did any air this month? No. Did any air this year? No. When the series has gone 12 months with no new episodes, I think the word "present" is no longer meaningful, and think we should then start using the last_aired parameter as literally the last date the series aired a new episode. Keeping it "present" for shorter durations makes sense as there are often lots of schedule rearrangements across the spectrum of TV networks. There will always be exceptions, such as with Breaking Bad, which deliberately divided the final season into two shorter seasons separated by a 12 month wait or so (possibly to get all the cable companies to renew their A&E contracts!), and sometimes a show like Kung Fu Panda or Robot & Monster or whatever might have episodes burned off by Nickelodeon a year after the fact, but I propose we can deal with those rare exceptions when they arrive without getting into an argument with the children about cancellations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I had already commented on those changes but it seems I didn't. I really can't fault your rationale for the changes and support them fully. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Parameter on character infobox

Aussie, can you edit the character infobox template? It needs a birth name parameter; we've got lots of characters, notably Richard Castle, who have one birth name and another name they use regularly. I'd like to see birth name added below full name and above nickname on the template, so in Castle's case, we can display his full name as Richard Edgar Castle and his birth name as Richard Alexander Rogers. Do you have the permission to edit the template, or can you suggest the best way to go about getting the change made? Grazie!! --Drmargi (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New Maps

Hey AussieLegend, sorry to disturb your time, but I can't seem to find an answer as to why the grey-green maps are being changed?

Compare

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_(orthographic_projection).svg

a grey-green map with white lines, looks neater compared to

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AUS_orthographic.svg

So why the change? To myself the first image looks better, more modern than the second one What's your opinion?

Luxure (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the first, but I have no idea why the image was changed. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Howard Wolowitz

I missed a letter - should be "meant in humor". To my recollection it was an offhanded comment and not a serious discussion. Also, the last sentence is unsourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor Report on Secret Agent Julio.

Dear AussieLegend, my name is IceColdKillerz103. I like to report an editor who has been doing edit warring on the NCIS: Los Angeles DVD releases table, and the editor's name is Secret Agent Julio. He's been adding secondary DVD release dates and Blu-ray DVD release dates on the table columns and what I want you to do is fix all the release dates, and leave it the way it was before. Please do this for me, because I need your help on this problem, and this editor will not keep it together on his disruptive editing. Please contact me immediately when you get this message as soon as possible. Thanks.

IceColdKillerz103 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sublist

Hello AussieLegend. I was just wondering if you knew why the sublist of the template "episode list" is not used on the MythBusters season pages. The List of MythBusters episodes is very long, and can be hard to navigate comfortably due to the shortsummary field. Most large TV series use the sublist, as you already know. Using the sublist would shorten the page quite a bit, and make it more navigable.

Thanks.

SAJ (T) 04:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not used because it would make the episode list pretty much pointless. The episode titles don't reflect all of the myths tested in each episode so searching for a particular myth, as many readers do, would require searching up to 15 articles separately. TV season articles normally don't include the level of detail about episodes that we include in the season articles - summaries are supposed to be only 100-200 words. Rather than exceed that, we detail the episodes outside the table and limit the table to a very brief overview of the myths tested to make it easier for readers to search. Although MythBusters is a TV program, it falls outside the scope that {{Episode list/sublist}} was written for. If we were to use sublist to make the main list more navigable, we should probably rewrite every season article to move individual episode content into the episode tables for the same reason. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)