User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

PUI

PUI is a pain. But I don't know how to search for image copyrights. Woogee (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's easy with this editor. Just do a google search using the name he used for the image (without numbers). It's fast. If you're going to use PUI you really need to tag the images as well. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean tag the images? I was tagging them with puidisupted. Woogee (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes you were. Stupid me, I wasn't scrolling far enough down the page. Sorry. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Not a prob. :) Woogee (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Penguins Season 1

There are three unaired season 1 episodes are still remaining (even though season 2 debuted.) So please do not put "February 15, 2010" on the overview template box. "Huffin and Puffin", "Truth Ache" and "Command Cristis" are season 1 episodes that are unaired on TV.

Here's the proof: http://www.toonzone.net/schedule/displaySeries.php?seriesID=288&networkID=20 for prod. order for seasons 1-2. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon J. Marcellus (talk • contribs) 02:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Toonzone.net is a fan site[1] and, as such, is not a reliable source. The content on that site can not be guaranteed so it can not be used as a reference and reliable sources show no such episodes in the listings. "Huffin Puffin" isn't even mentioned in the toonzone table. This means that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the end of the season is still February 15, 2010. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Reputations of states

Hello, AussieLegend. I've been wondering for a while whether Australian states have reputations the way American ones do. Texas is known for its guns and for being big. New Hampshire is known for being fairly rugged and libertarian, but its neighbor, Vermont, is known for being fairly leftist. Iowans are all supposed to be honest, straight forward, and hard working. If the states don't have such reputations, do the cities? If so what are those reputations, state and city? Thanks for helping or even just reading this. -Rrius (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier, but this one got away from me. I had to think about it a bit and draw on the past 50 years..... There are no definite reputations but there some generalised opinions about different states but they do vary considerably. You could ask 100 people and get 100 different opinions. Some of the more common ones that I've heard are:
States
  • Queensland has a superiority complex, it thinks it's above the other states. However, for "fun in the sun", it's generally regarded by most to be the best place for it. Of course we don't tell the Queenslanders that. Queenslanders are the fastest drivers in Australia.
  • New South Wales is often called Newcastle, Sydney, Wollongong after the three main cities. Ironically this usually comes from residents of NSW who don't live in those cities because they feel that these are the only places that the state government seems to care about. People in Newcastle and Wollongong think that Sydney is the only place that the state government seems to care about. NSW drivers can't drive above 100km as it's well known that doing so will turn your car into a killing machine, except in Sydney. Newcastle drivers are the worst drivers in the country.
  • Queensland and New South Wales are known through the rest of the country for their interstate rivalry.
  • Australian Capital Territory (usually called the ACT) is known for its hot air. It was created specifically for the national capital and the pollies there generate enough hot air to dry every piece of clothing in the world several times over.
  • Victoria considers itself the cultural capital of the world. The other states know it as the crime capital of Australia and there's about a 50:50 split on whether it is the cultural capital. It's a bit of a joke really, which is ironic because there's also a 50:50 split on whether or not Victorian comedy is funny. (It isn't) Victorians are the worst drivers in Australia. Victorian police are known for being gun-happy.
  • Tasmania is still known as the "apple isle", even though it doesn't produce as many apples as it used to. Tasmanians are often called "two headers" and there are always jokes about how everyone in Tasmania is related to each other. Tasmania is also the "missing state". For a long time, stencils of Australia, especially the plastic stencils used in schools only included the mainland. Even some maps excluded it. Tasmanians don't need to drive. You can walk everywhere.
  • South Australia is known for its wine and culture.
  • Western Australia is known for ..........ummmm ...... there must be something. The state is 2 hours behind the eastern states and 1.5 hrs behind the central states so there are often jokes about that. Like Queensland, some Sandgropers (residents of Western Australia) have a superiority complex, claiming that WA mining supports the country. It really is a world of its own.
  • Northern Territory (usually called "the NT" or sometimes, incorrectly, "the Top End") is known as being remote and pretty laid back. Northern Territorians drink more beer per capita than anywhere else in Australia. (or probably even the universe)
Cities
  • Brisbane is often referred to as "Bris Vegas", an allusion to "Las Vegas". No comment.
  • The Gold Coast is a popular tourist destination and, for a long time, people outside QLD joked about it being a suburb of Tokyo, as there was (is?) a lot of Japanese owned development. Some of the street signs are in both English and Japanese.
  • Novocastrians (people from Newcastle) are rabid Australian Labor Party supporters. The ALP could announce that it was going to kill everyone in Newcastle who voted Labor and they'd still win the next election.
  • Sydney and Melbourne are rivals in almost everything. Melbourne is known for its crappy weather (four or more seasons in a day). Melburnians like to point out that Sydney has a higher rainfall than Sydney but Sydneysiders like to respond by pointing out that Sydney's rainfall occurs in bursts throughout the year while Melbourne's occurs as constant drizzle. Melburnians were upset when Sydney got the 2000 Olympics. Sydney doesn't like Melbourne being declared the most liveable city. Like I said, everything.
  • Melbourne takes pride in being the capital city of the cultural centre of Australia. That's one of the few Victorian jokes that is funny. Melbourne is the worst place in the world to drive.
  • Adelaide is "the city of churches". Nobody there stays up past 12 (midday, not midnight).
I really can't think of anything else right now. I hope that helps a bit. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for. -Rrius (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:HarleyN

I'm starting to think that HarleyN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sock of Keys43, as they are editing the same articles, have the same interests and uploading copyrighted photographs (Even using Street View). Not sure if you feel the same. I'm going to see how it pans out, as I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, before taking it to SPI. Bidgee (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just finished a post about this on your talk page. It's pretty clear to me that HarleyN is a sock. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thinking the very same idea! ;) I agree, seems to be a lot in common with the past sockpuppets IMO. I've not found any more files that are proven copyvios but maybe a IfD is in order for the sockpuppets image uploads? Bidgee (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Several copyvios have already been deleted. What I really find annoying with this editor is he creates a lot of articles that just shouldn't exist. They contain copyvios or are unreferenced stubs and when the copyvios are removed those articles become stubs. I've prodded a few but he removes the prod and then doesn't do anything to improve the article. Even worse, some do-gooder comes along and removes the prod and we're left with a whole pile of stub articles that shouldn't exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Danny A. Jacobs

Hello AussieLegend, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Danny A. Jacobs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Probably notable as the director of Humboldt County (film). You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD:A7 states that the criterion is valid if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. Without references, which is something the suspected sock who created this article (and others like it) refuses to add, the claim is not credible, which is why I tagged it. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Castle

Oh, you editor, you. I was loving the whole image of a park covered in caramel.  ;-) --Drmargi (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Hannah Montana episodes

You're welcome. :)

I've added the list article to my watchlist, so I can keep an eye on changes. (I've got a lot of Disney stuff on my watchlist for reasons of speculation and fancruft. I appreciate the enthusiasm of the new editors, but a lot of that stuff would be better served at a fan wiki, no here.)

Personally, I think the transclusion of episode lists is an elegant solution. I'm trying to think of a similar elegant solution that will work for season 4 until there's enough information for that to be a useful article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with season 4 is List of Hannah Montana episodes. In the last two months there have been 233 edits and yet, there has been almost no valid change to the content.[2] I'm sick of coming close to 3RR breaches in trying to keep the article under control. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I've got an idea to maybe stub the article with what we do know about season 4. That'll point readers back to the main HM and list articles and hopefully keep the list articles clean. (Well, a fellow can dream. :) ) I'll draft it up in userspace and get your input before I boldly overwrite the season 4 article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm being bold and putting the stub up. Comment at will on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sydney picture

Hello, I am very sorry for changing the picture. I didn't know one had been agreed upon - can you please write that on the talk page so that people like me know that? Bookscale (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to apologise. Being bold is something that we encourage. Keep doing it. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Bennett again

Hard name to Google for it seems. Anyway, sources have cropped up now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not enough to pass muster according to WP:V. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lists of Arthur Episodes

Noticed this through Special:Newpages ... assumed they were new pages and didn't realise you were splitting an existing page - did you realise the entire original page is pretty much one big copyright violation? Copy and paste an episode summary into Google and you'll inevitably turn up a direct copy that pre-dates this article, including major websites and the BBC. It might be worth holding up on splitting it up for the time being because at the moment it's a G12 speedy candidate unless it's rewritten... Black Kite 11:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit too late to stop splitting because I finished before I saw your message. This is probably worth mentioning on the article's talk page. I'm not even sure how I got involved with this article. I just started converting it to use {{Episode list}} and it snowballed from there. It's not a program I watch. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
OK no problem, I'll have to see what's best, I don't particularly want to delete loads of material but on some of the sub-articles if you remove the copyvio there's nothing left! Black Kite 11:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Castle episodes

The only opposition is from Drmargi, I tried to discuss this on his talk page for another article. He didn't bother to even respond a second time. Xeworlebi (t•c) 07:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

An IP deleted the information as well. The place to discuss such matters is on the talk page of the article. If there is no opposition there, you can assume that there is no opposition. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The IP was clearly Drmargi, same language (IP's never clearly explain themselves) even the fact that he referred to it as Part I and II instead of Part 1 and 2 which is what is on the page. Xeworlebi (t•c) 07:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about that, I was assuming good faith. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Third Party References

Hi, I'm the creater of the Cardiff JSFC page and I was just wondering if you had any suggestions on how I could put in references to some of the club's newsletters. The problem with them is that they aren't published online and so I would have to scan them onto my computer and then upload them to photobucket or a similar site and I doubt wiki moderaters would view photobucket as a reliable source. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty707 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The newsletters present a problem. Any use as you've described is effectively original research and photobucket is a self published source. What you really need are references from sites or in publications that are not associated with Cardiff JSFC. They are required to establish notability, which the article currently does not do. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. Could you please take the page off wikipedia until I have acumulated enough 3rd party references to bring the page up to par? It would just be easier to do it that way than to have the page deleted for not meeting the requirements, as this way I would be able to re-upload the page in the future when it does meet the requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty707 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally, the only way to have the page "taken off Wikipedia" is to have it deleted from the article namespace. In the event that happens, you can ask an admin to userfy it, in which case a copy of the article, before it was deletie can be moved to a subpage in your userspace. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, can you please give me the link for the requests for userfication page or whatever it's called because I can't seem to find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty707 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I can handle the request right now. —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty707 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect a hacked account

If you look at todays (16/3/2010) edits by User:Langston Bonasera, you will see they have never, ever put up vandal-like edits on pages. I may not agree with some of LB's edits, but this is quite unusual, and I worry their account has been hacked. However, I have no idea what to do. You are quite knowledgable about Wikipedia rules and reporting, so could you direct me? Or if you think I should ignore it, I shall. However, I do think LB is trying to be a good editor, and I would hate to see their reputation as a good faith Wikipedia editor ruined by somebody else. Thanks Aussie...I appreciate any advice you can give. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. A few days ago I tagged a number of images that Langston Bonasera had uploaded because he hadn't provided any source or copyright information or provided an FUR. He then provided basic source information but no copyright information or an FUR so I tagged them again. His response was not to fix the images but to upload a similar image from 2010 with {{PD-old}}, a clearly inappropriate tag. This is now listed at WP:PUI because of that. It's possible that he's just taken to heart the warnings about the image problems. Some editors just can't accept criticism of their efforts. This was one such response by an editor who couldn't handle the fact that his unsourced article about a non-notable subject was nominated for AfD. It's entirely possible Langston is just lashing out. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Duck

Looks like the "Kidtopia" editor is back! AnthonyRK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Mount Crispan (Google searching doesn't show anything), another way to prove its them is in the infobox as they have "| easiest_route = Kidtopia Blvd (WWII Road)" which doesn't exist and in the article with fixation with the No. 3 Fighter Sector RAAF. Bidgee (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a hoax. Ga.gov.au shows no suckh place. Nominated for speedy but did not remove your prod. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
What I thought. I have filed a SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keys43. Just seems rather suspect. Bidgee (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I was just in the middle of creating a case myself. I'll add to yours obviously. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
heheh, sorry! Took me a few minutes to remember everything, anything you could add to the SPI would be great. Bidgee (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Based on the Kidtopia connection, I've deleted Mount Crispan under criterion G5. I've deleted Steve Price (Queensland) likewise, since it was created by the same editor. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

IPX protocol in Windows Vista

Hello! Could be a plugin consisting of Microsoft binaries and with only .inf files possibly modified (5.1 -> 6.0 in about 3 lines I suppose) named "third-party" ? May be "assembled by a third party" would be a better wording for the package, if we don't know the origin of its content exactly / surely ?

Or I need to publish accurate research on plugin's content and then ask you to link it too?

All that is murky enough for me ;-( May be we should ask the author to stop distributing the plugin and instead only distribute his own modifications to .inf ?

--A194 44 217 5 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually found 2 sources backing my view: [3] and [4] Is that enough for reverting to my wording? --A194 44 217 5 (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Those sources are not reliable and infact forums should never be used, even as external links. Bidgee (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
So where I can publish confirmation research for you to link? (it's easy: unpack, look at versions, compare files) --A194 44 217 5 (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Please answer, do you agree? Or please cut'n'paste this discussion to Vista talks for others to decide. --A194 44 217 5 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As Bidgee has indicated, the sources are not reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources there might be a case for inclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I only found what seems to be the original forum post on the TechNet (cited in mentioned Russian forum, but not linked) --A194 44 217 5 (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we could agree changing the wording to "plugin, packaged by third-party". This would both:
- reflect the truth;
- don't need other sources.
Do you? --A194 44 217 5 (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re PROD on Naval Criminal Investigative Service Agent Afloat

AL - I can tell you that NCIS agents on Aircraft Carriers is not made up nor is this likely derived from the TV show. I am unaware as to whether the program name is correct or exists as a formal Navy program, but I can assure you that NCIS agents are assigned to Aircraft carriers. I have worked professionally with them in Istanbul in the 1980-90s. I am not going to remove the PROD yet, but will try and discuss with the creator to see if there is some better referencing that will resolve this. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Naval Criminal Investigative Service Agent Afloat, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! This is one where doing a bit of WP:BEFORE would have been useful.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I did do some research before prodding the article (I'm not stupid) and everything pointed to the TV series.example Perhaps if I'd had inside knowledge I'd have known differently. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
For future reference, there's some minimal information towards the bottom at http://www.ncis.navy.mil/mission/terrorism/counterterr.asp, though I agree that this should probably be merged into the main article (if kept at all...not really that major a part of NCIS). — Huntster (t @ c) 21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that reference was added to the article after I'd prodded it. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
D'oh. (ignore me) — Huntster (t @ c) 22:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

CoralRosie

This editor isn't a sock of 1989Rosie, although he is a sock. He has far too good a command of English, knows the MOS and other policies too well, and writes far too detailed edit summaries for her. A grain of common sense tells me it's someone else with a grudge; the edit war should lead us to the real puppetmaster. Same anger, same edit, same need to win, same command of English (with some of the same errors), same lack of civility. The userID is so ham-handed, it practically screams an attempt to mislead us. I don't know what the criteria for a checkuser are, but perhaps they're in order here, before we head off down a blind alley?

I left the following on the sockpuppet case page for Rosie: CoralRosie is a sockpuppet, I agree, but not of 1989Rosie. First off, Rosie barely spoke English, did not discuss, and did not use edit summaries, much less the elaborate ones we see from this editor. Second, this editor's command of English is far too good to be 1989Rose. Third this editor is angry and using one set of edits to either make a point or win a battle, not to improve the article where the warring took place. This is quite clearly another editor (I think I know who, but will hold off naming him until I have a bit more to back it up.) This strikes me as a transparent attempt to make it appear Rosie is back while trying to act in a provocative manner for an entirely different reason. Drmargi (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'm a woman. Drmargi (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK: CoralRosie has been blocked, but the puppetmaster, who we both know perfectly well is not 1989Rosie, has gotten off scot-free because he uses our assumptions and his own grudge against her to edit war . What's the next step? Drmargi (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it comes down to evidence. CoralRosie was clearly a sock but, other than our extremely strong suspicions, we don't have any evidence. At this point there's little we can do other than to reach some consensus about how to resolve the "Part" issue. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
He's also done at least one IP edit, which you seem to have found, based on your comments. Did anyone do a checkuser as part of the investigation? The guy is in Belgium, which makes him a fairly uncommon editor. This is pretty outrageous behavior, and the evidence was patently clear that it wasn't Rosie -- the English alone was sufficient for that. Drmargi (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
He's not the only one who has done IP edits. There have to be good grounds for a checkuser and those grounds don't exist yet. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The ambiguity of the puppetmaster alone should be enough to make the checkuser acceptable. He's already a very aggressive editor when it comes to conflicts, and doesn't know the meaning of WP:CIVIL. This is just going to make him worse. If this is the only outcome, the system has failed utterly. Drmargi (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Friendly FYI

Hello!

Just so you know, shouldn't be {{subst:}} the template {{Prod-2}}, as you did here. This actually caused the page to show up in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. The standard listing of what can and should be substituted is at Wikipedia:Substitution. :) Keep up the positive contributions! Avicennasis @ 01:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WOWP = HM?

How come when I made this edit WOWP Extended I added 35 episodes for S3 as 86 was produced and subtracted from S1 & S2 and it was never reverted, and when I did it for HM it's always been reverted? We have a source for the FULL Series episode count, there's one more season. - Alec2011 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't usually watch Wizards of Waverly Place articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
That reference doesn't have the number of S3 episodes in the article jsut to total number of episodes ordered for WOWP after S3. It says 35 on the WOWP episdoes for S3, so someone subtracted 86 from S1 & S2 and got 35. Should this be deleted? The information isn't correct then right?? - Alec2011 (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
My gut feeling is that it isn't correct but I'm afraid I don't know for sure because I don't know the history of that program. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Info about a repeat vandal

Hello AussieLegend. I noticed that you were tracking IP vandal 74.199.1.111 today. I have a few pages on my watchlist that they vandalised after your warning to them. I wanted to let you know that this person was editing a few days ago as Jwelch5742. As you will notice from that editors contribution page Special:Contributions/Jwelch5742 some of the same articles were being messed with. It sticks in my memory that we had a spate of this same kind of editing a few years ago (ie changing run times on films and altering awards names etc - they especially like to hit Disney films) but I can't remember what that editors user name was. I am passing on this info to so that you will have it if they return, yet again, under another guise. If we are able to give the admins at AIV this extra info it may get the editor blocked more quickly. If this info is not something that you want to deal with then I will offer my apologies for intruding on your talk page. I also thank you for your time and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in. I'm always interested in getting rid of vandals. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: File source problem with File:Nick Movies logo 2010.png

Well, it's a good thing I didn't let the previous image go to waste. I saved it onto my jump drive before it could be deleted. But hey, I could add it back if you want me to. :)
~~LDEJRuff~~ (see what I've contributed) 14:36, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

It's up to you if you want to upload it again. If you do, be sure to include source and copyright information, along with an FUR. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Whirlpool (website)

Hi AussieLegend.

A couple of things please.

In relation to the Whirlpool listing, I'm confused, as I dont see how mentioning that they are a Pty, Ltd Business constitutes Vandalism?

Secondly, my understanding is that companies are in fact prohibited from listing on Wikipedia? Is this in fact correct, or incorrect?

Thirdly, you make mention that information such as the company details should be listed under company profile, but I dont see one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razorharrison (talk • contribs) 02:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The information that you added is factually incorrect, misplaced and you were warned about re-adding it yet you have added it so many times that it now seems reasonable to call it vandalism.
  • "A commonly missheld belief ...", "Unlike the commonly misplaced belief, "[5] - These statements are uncited and constitute original research, which is why they were removed.
  • "Whirlpool Forums is a privately held business which operates within the ASIC ACT of Australia"[6] - Factually incorrect. Whirlpool Forums is not a business, it is a website owned by a business, as very many are, and the business does not operate "within the ASIC ACT of Australia".
  • "Whirlpool Forums WHIRLPOOL BROADBAND MULTIMEDIA Pty (NSW BN98319722), Ltd, is a registered business which is responsible to ASIC under the Australian Corporations Act."[7] - Factually incorrect. WHIRLPOOL BROADBAND MULTIMEDIA is not a proprietary limited company at all. You added this to the beginning of the history section when it is not part of the history of the subject of the article. It is simply a registered business name in New South Wales and operates under the NSW Office of Fair Trading in that state. Whirlpool.net.au was registered long before WHIRLPOOL BROADBAND MULTIMEDIA was registered in NSW in 2007. Restoring this information after I removed it, as you did without explanation,[8] is the beginning of edit warring, which is not appropriate.
  • "Initially registered as WHIRLPOOL (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LIMITED (ACN 003 578 023)"[9] - Again, this is uncited and constitutes original research.
  • "which has historically operated as a PTY.LTD"[10] - Again uncited, again original research. The relevant links to the Victorian registered company, the NSW registered business name and domain name registration information show no link between the three, as required under Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
There is no restriction on having articles about companies on Wikipedia. There are many company articles. However, this is irrelevant as the article is about a website, as indicated in the article's title, "Whirlpool (website)", not a company. There is no "corporate profile" in the article because it's not really relevant to the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aussie Legend,

Thanks very much for your response. Most of what you say makes sense.

As a director of a large finance company, we have a number of internally developed applications which exist within our business. Would it be ok if I set up a wiki page for them? After all, they are not our company, but rather just an app which is used by the staff. I'm sure based on your logic that would be fine right? Or, are the rumours about you been a mod of whirlpool also correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razorharrison (talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that you've stated that you are director of the company, you may have a conflict of interest in creating the articles. As for Whirlpool, I'm most certainly not, nor have I ever been a mod there. I haven't even posted there for two or three years. Too many Internode trolls. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Leroy Jethro Gibbs

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Leroy Jethro Gibbs. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leroy Jethro Gibbs (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin AIV review

I suppose it's OK if it's a totally spurious report and the page is somewhat backlogged. We have allowed similar non-admin review in AfDs where the result was a snowball or speedy keep. I've also seen it a UAA where it was one we didn't need to block. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

NCIS: LA Page

AussieLegend, I have not once vandalised the page on NCIS: Los Angeles, I have merely improved the information on these pages, after all wikipedia is for users to share their knowledge. I did not realise that the short episode description I entered was copyright and so I accept that it was right to be taken down, otherwise I have done nothing wrong and I resent your implication that I have. I don't expect to receive any more ridiculous and unjustified threats to block my account as all I am simply doing is improving wikipedia pages. I will continue to edit pages to share knowledge and I don't expect you to give me any more problems about this. Jamesyboi1991 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As was indicated by the warnings on your talk page, you added copyrighted content to List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes.[11] The content that you added was a direct copy of content at this url. Addition of this content was a clear copyright violation and the warning was justified as Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. The purpose of the warning was to alert you of this and it appears to have worked. If you don't add any more copyright violations you shouldn't expect to receive similar warnings. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Original airdates of shows

Hey, you seem pretty active on the TV show entries on Wikipedia: if a show (specifically The Secret Saturdays) is in a state of limbo where it hasn't been officially cancelled but has been off of the air for months with confirmation that no new episodes have been ordered, should its original airing be listed as ending in "Present" or the airdate of the last episode?

Thanks.

-Grand Commander13 (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd leave it as "present" until such time as there is confirmation with "|status=" as "unknown". Since there is no confirmation, changing it to a date could be considered original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. How long does the "Present" and "Unknown" go on for? Obviously you wouldn't leave it like that for ten years, so how long should word be waited for?
-Grand Commander13 (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Good question. I'd leave it until there's extremely little or no likelihood of return, probably about 12 months. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks.
-Grand Commander13 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

MythBusters: "I smell a revisit"

While I understand your position, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment that "I smell a revisit" is in and of itself a valid verdict, or even worthy of mention (unless a revisit is eventually done, especially if it overturns the original verdict). It's hardly the first time those words (or words to the same effect) have been uttered on the show, but in every previous case, the official verdict at the time (Busted, Plausible, Confirmed) was the verdict actually used on this site. "I smell a revisit" also does not mean there will be a revisit, only that they speculate one may be needed.

(Example: The first Compact Compact, for example, did indicate a possible revisit, but the verdict for the time was Busted. What's more, it was years before the revisit was actually done.)

In the case of Jamie's device in Spy Car Escape, the proper verdict would be Busted, since that was how they called it originally.

In addition, I'm not even certain the phrase was necessarily indicating Jamie's specific device. It seemed to me that his remark was likely indicating they might revisit the myth for other devices meant to discourage pursuit. —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 17:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I wasn't the person who originally added the "set for a revisit" result.[12] When that change was made I watched the episode again and, after doing so, chose not to revert because the "new" result was what was stated in the episode. "Busted" was never used, nor was "Plausible" or "Confirmed". Jamie quite clearly said "I smell a revisit" and Adam, in a funny voice, said "So do I". That's all they said and assigning "Busted" to that result is original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Granted. My apologies for the mistake in attribution, and in my mistaken memory as well. In this case, the "set for revisit" would be appropriate. The only change I would make from here would be to color the text either blue or purple, as has been done in previous episodes where the verdict was nonstandard. Another possibility would be to use a Pass/Fail system for their builds, as was used for some previous episodes (e.g. MacGyver Special, Dog Special). —MarsJenkar (talk | contribs) 18:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sydney distances

Hi Aussie Legend,

I see you reverted my changes on the distances of Sydney. I can see why (you say there is consensus to use road distances), but I think the problem is that you can't see what the consensus is (It cost me some time to figure it out). Isn't it possible to make a comment, or for example change the word "location" in "road distances". In fact I first changed the distances in the Darwin-page, cause there the distances with other Australian cities are in road distances, but that whith Singapore is in "real" distance. Rather confusing. --212.238.34.13 (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd have to admit that it's a bit hard to put in a road distance to Singapore. Leave it with me. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but I still think it would be better when there is an explanation on the page that it is about road distances. You say there is consensus in using road distances, but I was not aware of it and I'm old enough to know that I'm not that unique in this world. Can it be that the consensus you're talking about is true for the people of Australia but not for other parts of the world? I'm from Europe and road distances do not say everything here. Most of the time the shortest way is not the quickest way. So I'm only suggesting to make the text more clearly (for dumbo's like me), and I think that's all we want for an encyclopedia. --212.238.42.253 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Suite Life on Deck Episodes

I just wanted to inform you that most resources say the episode is called "Showgirls". An episode cannot have two names. - 74.12.10.133 (talk)

An episode can have two names, this happens often, and is the reason that the "|AltTitle=" field exists. The dual naming of this episode was discussed at length on the article's talk page.[13] --AussieLegend (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There are no resources that say the episode is called "Show and Tell". Why did you revert my edits? - 74.12.10.133 (talk)
There are numerous resources showing the episode name as "Show and Tell", as shown at the link that I provided above. Here are just a few:[14][15][16][17] --AussieLegend (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I sill think "Showgirls" is more appropriate. Also, do you know when information about the new episode "Seven Seas News" will be available? - 74.12.10.133 (talk)
I still don't understan why there are two names - 74.12.10.13 (talk)
Neither do I but it's not unusual.[18] The consensus is to have both names in the article. This matter has been discussed with you at length now, I've provided you with a link to the talk page discussion and numerous sources that cite the name as "Show & Tell". Your persistent removal of the title is now bordering on vandalim and you should stop, immediately. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't really consider it vandalism - 70.50.196.28 (talk)
That's of little consequence. The editing is at best disruptive and since it's being done against consensus, despite the evidence showing the content is valid, it's clearly removal of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that someone removed the information about the new episode "Starship Tipton". Isn't that considered vandalism? - 70.50.196.28 (talk)
I don't know what you're talking about. That episode is still listed. The only information that was removed from the episode's entry recently was a copyright violation. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant. And how was it a copyright violation? - 70.50.196.28 (talk)

You should try reading the policy that I linked to. The episode summary had been copied and pasted from the cited source.[19] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know when the page will be unblocked? - 74.12.10.68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

Suite Life on Deck"

I was just wondering, do you know when the "List of Suite Life on Deck Episodes" page will be unblocked? - 70.50.199.182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC).


Why do you keep removing the information about the episode "Starship Tipton"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.9.103 (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You know very well why. It has been addressed above. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter if I remove my own comments? - 74.12.9.103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC).

The comments you removed belonged to different IP addresses to the one that deleted them. Therefore, they were not "yours". You should read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments --AussieLegend (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

They were all about the same subject. Sometimes I change my ip adress - 74.12.9.103 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.10.198 (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. If you want to avoid further problems, you should create an account. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's what I know I don't know nothing about the show girl episodes but there could be many reasons for that. I am going to use iCarly for an example. If Dan changes an episode name it could mean it is dull or he just didn't like it. For the episode iDate a Bad boy it went through many changes. it was called iMeet connor, iget cought and then to the orginal title and was combined into two episodes. For iQuit iCarly it was iSplit up and iDesciver dave and flick and then to the current title. This happens to alot of shows. I real don't follow suite life and I have seen the production titles and know they always don't match up. They are also consdered working titles.Checker Fred (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Bennett

Regarding your edit summary "Continuing to remove templates requesting sources is just going to result in this article going to AfD", I find it confusing that you use the word "Continuing" as this was my first edit to said article. Furthermore, what I removed was the Template:Unreferenced which denotes an article which is potentially a hoax/nonsense/completely unverifiable, and is not a "template[s] requesting sources" in the same way as Template:Citations missing and Template:Refimprove which you reinserted (with good reason), which denote a (shabby) work in progress. My point is, that the article was not again wrongfully included in the Category:All unreferenced BLPs. I don't object to your editing, only to your bossy choice of words which I find unfounded. And why would the threat of AfD deter me from editing? If you think it should be deleted, then put it up for AfD. Poulsen (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary wasn't aimed just at you. While you are technically correct regarding {{Unreferenced}}, and {{UnreferencedBLP}}, the template is commonly used in articles with exceptionally poor referencing or where the only sources are in external links, such as in Jeff Bennett. You might note that {{UnreferencedBLP}} links "references" to Wikipedia:Verifiability which requires inline citations. External links aren't sufficient, especially for BLPs. If you look at Jeff Bennett's history you'll see that the article has existed since 2004 without any citations, which is unnaceptable. Removing templates doesn't help get these articles referenced. Had you at least replaced the template with {{RefimproveBLP}}, my edit summary might not have needed to seem so bossy. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
You are right about substituting the unreferenced template with more specific templates like refimproveblp, and I will do so in the future. Poulsen (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs' Rules

Wasn't it agreed that Gibbs' Rules were NOT to be put on the Leroy Jethro Gibbs page? They keep showing up, so I was just wondering. I do not want to be accused of edit-warring, so I'm leaving them alone until a concensus is reached. Trista (Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There was agreement that they were not to be in the article, I just can't find any discussion. This why I haven't removed them. I think we need to discuss it on the article's talk page and establish a consensus there. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm

Why are we using a Google Sites personal webpage as a source at List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes? I just noticed that when you consolidated those references. There is no evidence they have accurate, reliable data. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Damn good question. I hadn't noticed it before either. I'm just writing up something about it on the talk page. Check there shortly. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, this information is now at Talk:List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes#UK ratings and I've notified the relevant editor on his talk page.[20] --AussieLegend (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SEASON

Do you have any comments or objections to my second proposal for WP:SEASON (ie that signed 11:00, 28 March)? (Reply to the MOS talk page, please, so all comments are together.) Mitch Ames (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Viewer Special Threequel

According to MythBusters (2006 season), if "Season #" of an special episode is "Special ...", then "Series #" of that episode will be "SP...", which will not sum up the total number of normal episodes.
According to MythBusters (2007 season), if "Season #" of an special episode is "...", then "Series #" of that episode will be "...", which will sum up the total number of normal episodes.
Therefore, if you cannot show the official source that "Viewer Special Threequel" is counted as an normal episode, I will change "Series #" of all episode in MythBusters (2009 season) and MythBusters (2010 season).UU (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The change you made to the episode numbering appears correct, so the 2009 and 2010 articles will need fixing. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The reason I reverted the change is not strange, because I did add at~ [21] If "MacGyver Myths" is an special episode, then "Alaska Special" and "YouTube Special" should also be special episodes. In addition, I will adjust the total number of episodes and special episodes of MythBusters (2008 season) in its article and List of MythBusters episodes. UU (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The point is, After I restored the note, explaining that it was a special episode, you removed it. That makes no sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thunderbolts Way

I drove past the signpost indicating Thunderbolts Way at its intersection with the Bruxner Highway near Yetman on 10 April. So, along with Thunderbolts Way map supporting this I guess that this is a fair assumption as to the end of the road? Cgoodwin (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Spoletorp

Tags look spurious. Maybe take the issue to the talk page there before adding them back. Thanks. --Baulkhamhillsrsl (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

AVAILABLE Non-free use rationale BOX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chrisjer.jpg for this picture used in the article CHRIS JERICHO (wwe wrestler) BELOW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Jericho

so could you kindly remove the (This file is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia) box ? thanks alot --Joseþhero 22:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images must not be used in place of free images, which is why the image has been removed from Chris Jericho by another editor. The orphan tag is still valid, so there is no reason to remove it. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

TSLOD episdoe: Mean Chicks

Hi, when you removed the episode Mean Chicks I added you wrote "Foreign language listings are generally unreliable. Episode names in foreign languages are often different to the English name and they are often aired out of sequence."

My source was sky Deutschland which broadcasts Disney Channel Germany. There was the original title listed (Original-Episodentitel) and that's logical the American one. DC GER shows other episodes before this including Seven Seas News and Starship Tipton. After Chicks they'll show reruns. Today's link to the source is http://info.sky.de/inhalt/de/popup/popup_listendetail.jsp?ausstrahlungsID=70290 . Otherwise you can use the search (Suche) http://info.sky.de/inhalt/common/schnellsuche/boundary/schnellsucheRH.do (top right). Thanks --Shego123 (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the other issues with the German listings is that the references change, as you've indicated with "Today's link to the source". The reference that you added a few days ago,[22] now shows a listing for "Rock the Kasbah" and it will likely change again soon as, no doubt, will the source that you've listed above. As such, the references are useless. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Press release at List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes

Hello. I'd like to apologize about adding the press release to verify episode #24 of NCIS: Los Angeles. I have never, ever heard that they were not accessible to everyone. (I am sure you are referring to outside of US.) Use of press releases has never been a problem before elsewhere. My preference is to use the press release for the obvious reason, it's a primary source rather than a secondary one. Obviously, I will not be adding them further to this page. I have removed the page from my watch to make sure it does not happen again. Sorry about that. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a problem. I doubt many Americans realise that cbsexpress is not available outside the US. I use The Futon Critic because it reproduces the press releases verbatim and is available to all. Wikipedia requires secondary sources for verification so The Futon Critic is ideal. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As a direct copy, I don't think that is really what is meant by a secondary source, it's just a cut-and-paste. "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." In this case, there is no reason to trust The Futon Critic more than CBS. But whatever, obviously we differ there. (BTW, I'm not arguing the use of TFC, as I use it often.) Again, my apologies. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How the Earth Was Made

Looks like we have another random IP changing vandal on our hands, this time one obsessed with changing colors on How the Earth Was Made. Cyberia23 (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We'll just have to keep watching. sigh --AussieLegend (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Logue

Hi. It would be good if you would review the AfD you initiated and consider whether some of the grouped nominees may be withdrawn by you as nominator. You could do this simply by striking through such entries with a <s> before and a </s> after, thus preserving the integrity of the discussion. Completely voluntary and your call. Cheers. --ClubOranjeT 09:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Amber Neilson has been improved reference wise now, at least proving international participations--ClubOranjeT 00:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
...and Emily van Egmond showing some GNG to accompany her international cap. The others I agree, they fail GNG with no in depth coverage, just passing mention in routine sports coverage --ClubOranjeT 02:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

HM Song

It says in the referecnce it will be in Season 4 because the Hannah Montana: Forever logo is featured on the page and it says by Miley Cyrus as Hannah Montana, as well as the Hannah Montana: Forever logo. That's what's in the reference. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that the song will be featured in season 4 because the logo is on the page is just that; an assumption, which is original research. References need to directly support a claim. The page doesn't do that. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Harrasment

Would Just like to know why adding a new section to a users page is considered harrasment if it is a valid argument about a topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spun883 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As was very clearly indicated on your talk page,[23] and as you know full well you did, you did not add a new section, you twice restored content[24][25] that Bidgee had previously removed from his talk page.[26][27] Such repeated action is harrassment. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

i restored it because it is arguing a valid point just because the user removes it doesnt mean he is right about it it seems as tho he dosent like that the argument brought up about the hsv maloo because he is wrong in what its proper definition is —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spun883 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You're m issing the point. You added nothing new. You simply restored what had been deleted. As I've told you on your talk page,[28] Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments says, "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. So, don't restore it again. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
i restored it cause it brought up a valid point. where should i disscuss it with the user then if it keeps getting removed from his talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spun883 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
You can discuss it on his talk page but don't restore any deleted content. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

ok so now how do i go about arguing the point if he just keeps deleting a new section as he just did a moment ago. now he is being selifish and dosent want to discuss a vail point

Clearly he does not wish to discuss it on his talk page, as is his right so you should raise the issue on the article's talk page. And please be careful editing. Your last edit here damaged content. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

TV show summaries

It seems this edit includes show summaries taken from a press release since a ton of websites use the same wording? Is this still a copyvio? PirateArgh!!1! 05:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, even though they're from a press release, it's still a copyvio. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Message for AussieLegend

My summary for NCIS season 3 episode Bait was less than 1000 words. Isn't it necessary to mention the ending. Angela faked her death to protect her family. Can I please edit NCIS season 3 episode Bait just like last week?(Fantastic 10 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantastic 10 (talk • contribs)

As I indicated, your summary was 6-7 times larger than it should have been. That means about 140-170 words, not 1,000. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Few wks ago, some other user told me that if a person edits an episode for TV SERIES, then it has to be less than 1000 words. Last Friday, when I edited "Bait", I put 725 words. When I edit an episode, does it really has to be 140-170 words & why? Isn't it necessary to write about the ending too. (Fantastic 10 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)).
I gather that you are User:99.88.78.94. You were actually told about 800 words for films.[29] TV episodes require much smaller summaries when there are many episodes sharing a page. The length I quoted was based on your statement that your summary was "less than 1000 words" and the observed length of the prose compared to other episodes in the article. I didn't actually do a word count. Template:Episode list's instructions state that the summary length should be 100-300 words. The summary that you added here is far too long. Breaking what you wrote at the lower and upper limits you get:
  • words 1-100: Marine Major Meyers has teenage son, Cody. Cody holds his classmates hostage inside a classroom by threatening them with a bomb strapped to his chest. Gibbs & his team arrive to school. Ziva takes photos of Cody, but she’s unable to get clear photos of bomb. Cody sees Ziva. He tells hostages to pull down blinds. Gibbs puts himself in danger by offering himself as a hostage. Tony takes charge of team. Gibbs is wearing bug/technology, so Tony & Ziva could hear the situation in the classroom. Cody tells Joe to search Gibbs just like the show called Cops. Joe
  • words 201-300: finds out Gibbs is wearing technology. Joe has to smash the technology. Cody demands them to bring his mother, Angela to the classroom by sunset. Mr. Meyers tells them that Angela died a year ago in a boat accident. She drowned. She loved sailing. Mr. Meyers didn’t say if Angela’s body was found. 4 months ago, Cody thought he saw his mother alive. Psychiatrist or therapist said that people imagine seeing people, who died. Abby & McGee find out there 3 computers connected to webcams in back of classroom. They want to use a computer, so they could get video of situation in classroom. They’re unable to use 2nd computer. They’re able to use 1st computer. Ziva & Tony are able to see what’s happening in classroom. If Abby types & enters at least 1 word, then it will appear on computer which is used by Abby & McGee. Abby sends message to computer. Gibbs sees message. When other team members see Cody’s bomb, they also see Cody holding remote. Remote has a button. If Cody presses button, then bomb will explode. They believe bomb and remote are real. When Cody looks through window, Gibbs sees an earwig in Cody’s"
  • words 301-725: ear. Snipers are able to shoot Cody in head, but Tony says, “Don’t shoot Cody.” Gibbs makes signals toward 1st computer. Team realizes earwig’s in Cody’s ear. Team says that Cody’s holding fake remote. Bomb’s real. Cody has earwig because he’s listening to the bad person, who has the real remote. Team says at least 2 people forced Cody to do it. Team says the bad people are using 2nd computer. Ziva says that if Cody doesn’t go with the plan, then Cody & other hostages are going to die. While the earwig’s working, team uses technology to locate the bad people. When Director Sheppard & Ducky talk to Major Meyers, Sheppard doubts this is Cody’s plan. Mr. Meyers’s shocked that this isn’t Cody’s plan. Mr. Meyers says that he & his wife have been married for at least 18 years. Angela was grade school teacher. He doesn’t have a dark side. He says his wife didn’t have a dark side. She loved her husband and son. Whoever’s doing this probably thinks Angela’s alive. Two guys are in a van. They’re Mexican. 1 of them is the person, who’s talking to Cody. Both guys are evil. Team locates the bad people. Team’s not at the bad people’s location. Tony tells Abby & McGee to make the bad people lose access to the second computer. If the bad people lose access, then they won’t see what’s in the classroom. Tony has a second plan. Tony tells Cody that the NCIS Team found Angela. Tony says that she’ll be at the school in twenty minutes. 1 of the evil guys says, “Angela wasn’t dead. She’ll be dead soon.” 1 of the evil guys gets the real remote. They’re probably planning to press the button right now. While they’re looking at the incident taking place in the classroom, their video changes. This was Tony’s second plan. The screen shows a classroom. Nobody’s in the classroom. It looks like the same classroom from the beginning. The screen also shows Ziva, who points her gun at them. They press the button more than one time, but they don’t hear an explosion. NCIS team arrests the two guys. Gibbs is also there. How in the world did Gibbs get there so fast? This was Carlos Mendoza’s plan because he wanted revenge. Angela faked her death to protect her family. Gibbs wants to find Angela, but Sheppard says he doesn’t have to. She opens the doors. They see Angela, Cody, and Major Meyers. Sheppard was probably the only one, who found Angela.
Sentences need to be written in a proper form, not abbreviated. ie."The team realizes there is an earwig in Cody"s ear", not "Team realizes earwig’s in Cody’s ear." Correcting this would take your summary well over 1,000 words. Generally, less is more. These are ony supposed to be summaries, not blow by blow accounts of everything that happens in the episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Langston Bonasera

Oh, that type of inappropriate upload happens often. The uploader isn't paying attention to the fact that an image already exists at a certain filename, or doesn't care, and goes ahead with the upload. I doubt he even knew that an image already existed at that location...likely just immediately hit OK for any warnings that popped up. I'll delete both his and your image change, leaving only the original. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Another issue

By the way, why did you make this edit? If there's no source for the biographical information (and I have found nothing beyond unreliable sources like IMDB), then it should not be present. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I added a citation during my second edit, which apparently I never saved. I was surprised to see no birthdate in the article so I did some searching and found a source. Unfortunately it was on my daughter's laptop and she's headed back to Sydney so I don't have access to the browsing history to redo the citation. I've self-reverted because it's going to be a couple of weeks before I have access to that computer again. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Eek, that's unfortunate. I hate seeing biographies with no DOB and location and such, but I've come to dislike random IPs adding unsourced material even more (or worse, IPs adding fansites or other wiki-type sites as sources). I hope I didn't come across as bite-y...my wiki-patience has just been wearing a bit thin lately. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I completely understand. It happens to me all the time. It even happened today.[30][31] --05:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

TSS end date redux

According to AnmaFinotera (talk) on this page here the correct way to deal with TSS would be to note it as ending on January 30, 2010. I didn't know if you'd want to speak with her about it and reach a conclusion for the show as you are both very active but appear to be of opposite minds on the issues. Thanks for working on the TSS page.

-Grand Commander13 (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a citation from a reliable source that confirms no new episodes have been ordered, you could add the end date, with the citation attached. --16:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Well thanks. I've edited it and put in the citation, but it appears that the IP address user is dedicated to edit warring over the issue.
In fact, I appear to have "provoked" him; I'm not sure if it's a coincidence that not even three hours after I change the end date to January 30, 2010 that he puts it back to Present and adds in that same old canard about a movie (with no citations, no less) to the Episode List page. Could you Watch the main TSS page and the Episodes page just in case he continues to make an issue of this? Multiple people watching the page can keep the vandalism off better.
-Grand Commander13 (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Jonas and TSLOD Issues

When is the Suite Life on Deck page going to be unblocked? -70.50.196.107 (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Suite Life on Deck isn't currently protected, and hasn't been since 18 October 2008. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I meant List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes. I don't think it's fair that only admins are allowed to edit it -70.50.196.107 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Editing of List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes isn't restricted to admins. Any established, registered user may edit it. Unfortunately, due to persistent vandalism by IP addresses such as yourself, it was necessary to semi-protect the page until August 2010. If you wish to edit the page before then, you'll need to register an account and edit other pages constructively for a while. Alternatively, you can make a request for someone else to edit the article on the article's talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of vandalizing articles?? Why don't you check my user history and see how often I've done that -74.12.3.243 (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Your IP address is dynamic, you get a new edit history every time you get a new IP. What doesn't change is your ISP. Are you denying that you've edited List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for heads up, Aussie. I didn't really care to engage in conversation with the person. They are clearly a troll. QuasyBoy (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't deny it. I'm a fan of the series, and I visit the page quite often. I also saw the comments you made on QuasyBoy's talk page. You refered to me as a "troll"? You probably don't know this but I am a female, and I find that highly offensive and rude. Second, you made a false accusation that I "don't engage in talk page conversations"? What is your problem?? I frequently leave messages on your talk page as well as other users, so don't throw this crap at me, and don't gossip to other users about me. This is abuse! -74.12.3.243 (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
When you have edited the page, you have vandalised it, as we've previously discussed. Your edit history doesn't support your claim that you've engaged in conversations on other editors' talk pages. More to the point, and this is what I actually meant, you don't engage in article talk page discussions. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
That's because my ip address changed. Duh! And why did you assume I was a guy and tell QuasyBoy that I was a "troll"?? You're not a very nice person -74.12.6.181 (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Which is exactly what happened when you asked me to check your user history and see how often you'd vandalised articles, knowing full well that there were only two edits in your history at the time. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
There was no proof, so you can't accuse me. I know the person who vandalizes, but it's NOT me. Also, why did you tell QuasyBoy about me? I saw his talk page and he never talked to you about the issue before -74.12.6.181 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this other person your little brother perhaps? --AussieLegend (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Lots of people use the computer; my mom, my dad, my siblings, and my boyfriend who comes over often. I'm not sure who it is because I can't accuse without proof, but I'm pretty sure it's my older brother, not little -74.12.6.181 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
You didn't answer my other question -70.50.199.39 (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting List of Jonas L.A. episodes? The color looks ugly. There is nothing wrong with the green color. It is NOT vandalism and I think you should stop wasting your time -74.12.10.3 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, stop changing signatures on this page. The signatures assinged to each post should match the IP of the editor that added them. Persistently changing the signatures is considered to be vandalism. Secondly, as for List of Jonas L.A. episodes, other editors have reverted your changes and stated reasons for doing so. Once your change was reverted, you should have initiated a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining why you feel that your colours should be used. Persistently chnaging the colours back to your preferred version, which is similar to what you were doing at List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes, is edit-warring. It will not get your edits into the article. It will just get that article protected against you and you will be blocked. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I left a message on QuasyBoy's page, and he didn't reply for three days, and still won't. I don't see why there is all this fuss over a line color. I'm sure there's more serious issues on Wikipedia that need to be addressed. It is edit-warring, but it's not vandalism, at least in my opinion. So I think you should stop threatening me with blocks -74.12.10.3 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
How can I respond to you when you are using 3-5 different IP numbers. It may seem like I am making a fuss, But your edits are frequently reverted so what does that tell you. You are clearly disrupting the page with this lime color you so eagerly want. QuasyBoy (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've never had this problem on any other wiki -74.12.10.181 (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This isn't any other wiki. This is a serious encyclopaedia and there are rules to follow. It's a collaborative effort and you need to start collaborating. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to keep reveting the line color. I really don't have hours to spend talking to you and QuasyBoy]] about this nonsense. I am not vandalizing the article. On the contrary, I'm trying to make it look better -74.12.10.181 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Based on the number of posts that you've made in relation to this it seems that you have more than enough time on your hands. It's really rather simple. You changed the colour and it was reverted, not just once and not just by one editor but several times by multiple editors.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] There is clearly opposition to your preferred colours so the only chance you have of getting your edits into the article is by convincing others that they should be there on the article's talk page. As I've told you, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you need to start collaborating. Trying to force the edits into the article will not work. As happened at List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes, all that will happen is that the page will be protected as a result of your persistent disruption. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Why are you talking to me on both your page and QuasyBoy? Why can't I speak to QuasyBoy directly? -74.12.10.181 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit any page on Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Not if the page is blocked. I just think it's bizzare that you are talking to me on QuasyBoy's page, and vice versa -74.12.10.181 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
That page isn't blocked and it's not bizarre at all. Perhaps you should spend some time learning how Wikipedia works. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about List of Suite Life on Deck episodes. I don't see why it's been semi-blocked for three months. Secondly, QuasBoy told me to discuss the issue on his page, and when I did, he didn't want to talk. It's almost like he's playing games with me -74.12.10.181 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were talking about Quasyboy's talk page. You really should be more clear. As I previously told you,[39] it has been protected due to persistent vandalism by IP addresses. It was initially protected because of your disruptive editing,[40] then re-protected because of your continued disruptive editing once the page was unprotected.[41] The protection has since been extended because of continued non-constructive additions by new and IP editors. If IP editors such as yourself didn't persist in editing disruptively, then the page wouldn't need protecting.[42] Regardless, protection doesn't stop you editing the page. As I've already told you,[43] if you create an account and edit some unprotected pages for a short while, you can happily edit the page. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Once again you have accused me of vandalism, which I consider a personal attack. If you look in the history of List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes you'll find that I have not edited the page since May 7, which was BEFORE the second block. You knew perfectly well that the page was blocked because OTHER users were vandalizing it. My question was just a test -74.12.5.123 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
A statement of fact is not a personal attack. The claims of your disruptive editing were supported by the administrators who protected the page. Of course you haven't edited the page since before the second block. You haven't been able to because the page is protected. The page was specifically protected twice because you were editing it, as evidenced by the WP:RFPP reports, which I've linked above. You know, for somebody who doesn't have the time,[44] you certainly seem to have a lot of time on your hands. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This administrator has seen the IP's edits, both on the article and here, and come to the conclusion that one user is using multiple IP addresses to make the same changes. I've invited the IP to discuss the changes at Talk:List of Jonas L.A. episodes before making the change again—and have warned them that edit warring could lead to a block of their IP address(es). —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it was blocked because other users were vandalizing it, which you know perfectly well. [45] If you're saying that the edits I made on May 6-7 are the cause of the second block, then it is a personal attack -74.12.5.123 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I really don't intend arguing with you over this. The facts speak for themselves.[46] --AussieLegend (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The proof is right here [47]. For your information, I didn't tell you about this, but I was blocked frm May 8-21. So why would you accuse me of disruptive editing after the second block?? -74.12.1.181 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I never said you edited after the second block. I don't know where you got that from. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In this artcle [48] you accused me of vandaling the article after May 7, which I did NOT because I was blocked for two weeks -74.12.5.141 (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice try but you weren't blocked until 8 May 2010.[49] The RFPP request that you cited was opened before you were blocked. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes and I was blocked for two weeks, until May 21. So why did you say I continued to vandalze List of Suite Life on Deck episodes? There is NO evidence -74.12.5.141 (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I never said you continued to vandalise after you were blocked. And please, indent your replies. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes you did, as shown here [50]. You're just playing games with me -74.12.5.141 (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
That message was left a scant five minutes after the rangeblock went into place, so it's related to the vandalism that led to the block. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but not the SECOND block -74.12.5.141 (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
That was the request for the second block. Here is the timeline:
If there's anyone playing games here, it's not me. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you should read this article [55] -74.12.5.141 (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you should read the template at the top of that article:
Then, read this. I've tired of dealing with you. You're no longer entertaining. Goodbye. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AussieLegend/Archive_5&oldid=1078864621"