LiamNolan24

Sequel information

Just a heads up. This is supposed to be the main page for the sequel information. Not The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film). We only talk about it if it ties in with the same film mostly. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. LiamNolan24 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Fringe (season 5), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Season 3 Episode Guide

Hi LiamNolan23, you removed the episode title and the table from the episode guide. You quoted "Fourth party source". This table should not have been removed. You quoted WP:VERIFY but the link article to a reputable online entertainment magazine detailing a tweet from the official verified Twitter account of the Falling Skies production team. Leigason (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, the original source given was a fourth party site in this particular circumstance, after further review, I have added the Episodes section back, with adequate sourcing. LiamNolan24 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sinqua Walls

Hey the article sinqua walls the stuff that you said need citation actually have but i dont know how to use a previous one without creating another reference.. can you help me?

doble post --Arimamba (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, let me examine. LiamNolan24 (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks for checking the article i forgot to point out that i figure out how to do it by reading a tutorial but you already know that. thanks anyways :P --Arimamba (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

GreenArrowTV.com

How is GreenArrowTV.com not a reliable source? Everything on the site has been accurate thus far, aside from one title that has changed. (More reasons for that on the Arrow talk page) 108.219.213.206 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Arrow (TV series). LiamNolan24 (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway

Oh my, the article is now worse than it was. There were no "disruptive" edits. A fairly new user wanted to put in a picture. It was older than the one that was already in the article, so I restored the more current image. The new user didn't get it, put it back, and so this time I explained it to the user on their talk page and restored the more current picture. Now, in what I assume to be a good faith effort to resolve the problem (there was no real problem), you've uploaded a copyrighted picture claiming fair use simply because it's more current. That is not a legitimate rationale for fair use. Every instinct in me said to revert your addition of the image for copyright reasons, but I've held off because I now feel like I'm battling. I urge you to reconsider keeping the image on Wikipedia and in the article. I'm assuming at some point the image will be deleted (I'm not going to delelete it because I'm involved), but it pains me to see copyright violations on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well pardon me! This is what I HATE about other editors on Wikipedia, I by no means, meant any harm or malpractice, I was simply trying my best to improve an article. Now you pounce on me like a cat on a mouse. Whatever happened to common, helpful courtesy. I'm resolving the situation. LiamNolan24 (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I sincerely thought I was being nice (forceful but nice). I said it was a good faith effort on your part. You are resolving the situation, and thank you for that. I particularly liked your edit summary "hail storm". Anyway, please don't take offense. Sometimes virtual communication is a problem, but it's the only way we have to communicate here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

True, perhaps I was a tad hasty. Thank you for being proper. Cheers LiamNolan24 (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Glee Season 4

Stop impersonating being a Wikipedia staff member. I'm putting accurate information with sources. Cory Monteith was doing his movie.--paradisebydashboardlight 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not impersonating anyone. LiamNolan24 (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Arrow

I respect that you put work into the article, but misattributing a status of "written by" to someone that just came up with a story concept is inappropriate. If there was a source that say that they wrote even a temp script that was ultimately turned into a full fledge script by the other writing pair then I would say that they "wrote" something. But "Story by" credit is given to anyone who provides an idea, a concept, or even a large enough element to the overall story of the episode. You don't have to write anything to get a "story by" credit, and often times show runners do a lot of the "stories" at the start of a show because they are trying to nurture it to last longer than a season. Al Gough and Miles Millar controlled most of Smallville for sometime. So, if there is a source that actually says these people wrote something, then I'm ok with them being re-added. As it stands, the sources say "story by" and the category they are under is "Written by". Altering it within the table doesn't change the fact that it attributes a level of action that they did not actually do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. "Story by" does not mean they wrote anything. The table says "WRITTEN BY". It is for the writers of the episode, not the people that came up with the story.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ratings tables

Hello, I agree with you about not adding the ratings tables to any TV article. I would wager that the normal TV viewer does not even understand what the extra numbers even mean. I had started to add the extra numbers (ratings/shares anyway) on some of my articles when I began editing back in December, but I soon realized that they are pointless to add for that reason. To me, it's just fluff/something different for articles, but I also agree they make the article too big (especially when it comes to previewing edits). I asked for assistance at Talk:Once Upon a Time (season 1) to blend the extra DVR numbers in the table, in order to condense that page. Again, all I really care about is the included viewer numbers in the Episode tables. The extra numbers may be fine for a short-season show, but networks usually don't have those. Just clearing the air. I also had a Broadcast table hidden at another series article and got the "disability" revert. After fixing most others' edits over the past year, I now know that simple is best. Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is refreshing hearing a bit of encouragement on here. I couldn't agree with you more I'll look into Once Upon a Time (season 1) see if we can make some headway. Cheers. LiamNolan24 (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm relieved to see I'm not the only one less than enchanted with the slavish addition of massive and meaningless tables of ratings. They routinely fail WP:UNDUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Drmargi (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

American Horror Story character Shelley

Please, for the love of God, quit changing "Shelley" to "Shelly". FX.com has her listed with both e's. [1] Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, no need to get nasty. I was only going by the original Entertainment Weekly source that states her name as Shelly, located here [2].

Apologies, but that article is 7 months old. They also do not put the umlaut over Sevigny's name either. They have changed both, even the added "Nymphomaniac", in their articles since, though. [3] Again, I apologize for seemingly snapping at you, I just tire of "edit wars". Keep up the great Wiki work and patrolling though! — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

See, this is how I wish every editor handled situations on Wikipedia. Thank you you for your kindness and courtesy. You, as well, keep up the great work. Cheers, LiamNolan24 (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I know from whence you speaketh. — WylieCoyote (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration

I do not understand your insistence in putting up empty sections that tend to stay empty, but in this case especially after I noted that it could derail the pre-existing DYK nomination of "The Role You Were Born to Play". A delay of several days would not have harmed anything. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

All for continuity. Every episode of Glee has a Reception section. LiamNolan24 (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they traditionally do not gain them until they are written. Speaking of continuity. And as the person who wrote a great many of them, not one from an pre-existing empty section. You'll notice that other shows, including ones like The Simpsons, do not do this with their articles; for example, many of the eleventh-season ones have no Reception section at all, though some do. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If numerous reviews are available, by reliable critics, then they should be featured in an episode's article. LiamNolan24 (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

And immediately, too, I gather. Good luck with that. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Color on Once Upon a Time S2

Liam, I'm entirely with you on the obnoxious purple used on the episodes page. However, the green isn't much better, and the lack of harmony with the DVD color makes it a target for constant change, particularly given you haven't discussed the change to one so different from the DVD color scheme. I'm going to work on finding another color that will be easier to read through, but still harmonize with the DVD cover, which should, with a little luck, make it easier for people with visual impairments, but avoid the constant changes that will result from a seemingly arbitrary color selection. --Drmargi (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the involvement. LiamNolan24 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Color changes

Liam, you've changed color over consensus on POI and been asked to discuss three times without doing so. I get that you have specific color preferences, but changing because the navy is on the CBS poster is a pretty weak reason, particularly given the yellow was selected because it is an iconic color on the show (it being the color of the boxes around Reese and Finch.) The amount of time it took you to make the change is irrelevant; you take that risk when you make a change over consensus, particularly knowing you were asked to discuss your previous color change on December 18. Please open a discussion and gain consensus before making any change to the colors again. --Drmargi (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, Liam, this would be a lot less agitating if you'd use the article talk pages and take a collaborative approach to contentious edits rather than trying to discuss by edit summary and force your edits into an article. You're master of your own experience and you're swimming upstream when you don't need to be. --Drmargi (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've found article talk pages are simply an arena for debates to become powerful arguments, hardly a solace for overly stressed beings such as myself. I'd rather state my sentiments in a short summary then engage in an infinite debate, no matter what the outcome. LiamNolan24 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, given the talk pages, for better or worse, are the established (and expected) route to resolving editorial disagreements, I'd be prepared for more aggravation, and possibly blocks for edit warring, if you keep trying to push edits without discussion. On balance, I'd take a whack at trying to use the talk pages, stress or no. --Drmargi (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

AFD close

Hi mate. I closed this AFD as keep. I thought you would probably see that but because I non-admin closed it, I thought I would drop you a note as a courtesy. I didn't think you would have a problem with that (given the withdrawal) but if you do, please let me know. Cheers,Stalwart111 08:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

re: edit warring threat

Excuse me, but the original post I edited was to reflect official cast billing. The original poster is listing things by personal preference/favorites and NOT in the order it should be. Also some of their sentences don't even make sense and/or they're redundant. But since they were here first I'm wrong? No wonder this site is the least credible thing on the internet. Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.187.86.20 (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2014 GA Thanks

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Christopher Nolan.

This user helped promote Christopher Nolan to good article status.

.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:The New Normal intertitle.jpeg

The file File:The New Normal intertitle.jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)