User talk:Alex 21

Home Talk Userboxes Scripts Sandbox 1 | 2 | DW | Module: / Sandbox TV Shows Notes Contributions Subpages Uploads

User:Alex 21/Archive

This may interest you

I thought this may be interesting to you [1] I had reported Matt14451 before for abusing his IP and suspected he may have been DownFame. Sure that didn't come to anything but wow, it looks like he was busy on here trolling. Esuka323 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Esuka323, wow is all I can say. I already had a report typed up months ago to file after I was suspicious of HumansFan (talk · contribs) popping up as a new account solely to support him and oppose me at a different discussion, but I never got around to it. But AlexTheDoctor (talk · contribs) as well? Who was specifically created just to troll my name and I? And six accounts? Thank you for bringing this to my attention! -- Alex^TW 23:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Revision 'List of Marvel Cinematic Universe tv series'

Dear Alex,

Due to you recent revision of my latest edit, I have decided to explain to you why I edited it. As you already know, Tina Minoru already made a small appearance in the MCU movie Doctor Strange. However, the article states that a different version of the character appears in the Runaways tv series. This is not correct as both the movie as well as the series takes place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The character is portrayed by different actors, but it is the same character... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brongers457 (talk • contribs)

@Brongers457: If the article states it's a different version, then it's a different version. If you disagree, please start a discussion on the article's talk page. -- Alex^TW 02:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As noted by the included sources, the executive producers of Runaways acknowledge the fact a character called Tina appeared in Doctor Strange, but pointed out she was never actually named onscreen, and thus, the version on the TV series is a different version. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for List of Fuller House episodes

An article that you have been involved with ( List of Fuller House episodes ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ('Fuller House (Season #) ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:List of Fuller Episodes. Thank you.  mrwoogi010  ^Talk 01:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

James Bond Pages

Hi Alex, not sure how familiar you are with the James Bond franchise, but you're an experienced editor and I thought of you when it comes to certain pages over there. There's currently three different pages about the Bond films: James Bond in film, James Bond filmography, List of James Bond films. For many months, I've been attempting to change the pages because they look incredibly outdated and the box office table in particular is truly awful. All of these articles are pretty bad in my opinion. However, there's 3(ish) users who monitor the pages (basically self-described "admins") who seem completely intolerant to any change whatsoever. Literally anything I do gets reverted, and I don't appear to be respected enough to be listened to, so I was wondering if you - being significantly more knowledgeable in Wikipedia rules etc. - could possibly have a look.

For example, I made a few edits on the List of James Bond films, attempting to alter the god-awful box office table. You'll find the edits in the edit history, of course. I only made a few changes but I thought it was better than it is now. This is probably one you'd be better with since it's a box office table and I'm assuming you know the true ins-and-outs of how box office tables should be. I also tried altering the James Bond in film page with a few overview tables at the beginning of different sections (as per other movie franchises). Again, you'll be able to switch between the current version, and my (now-reverted) version in the edit history. I don't see anything wrong with it, but the admins seem to require a full blown essay on why I've done my edits.

Sorry to bother you and no worries if you don't want to do anything. Thanks. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

TheMysteriousEditor, no problems with your question. I don't know much about the articles or film articles, so it may be best to take it to MOS:FILM and/or WP:FILM, and gain a firm consensus there. Do be aware, however, that you are well within your rights to report the other editor at WP:AN3 for violating WP:3RR at List of James Bond films for more than three reverts within 24 hours, including a revert against an IP. -- Alex^TW 03:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Update and request

Hi Alex,

It seems as though you are checking in from your break/vacation. Thought I'd run two things by you. 1) Our old "pal" Joeymiskulin finished his most recent block in the last few days. He then proceeded to continue on with the same disruptive behavior primarily by vandalizing infoboxes. I reported his behavior to the admins who had blocked him previously and went about reverting his edits. It wasn't soon after that he was blocked again for another month. 2) I'd also like to point out to you a recent conflict that has been ongoing in two different locations. It basically started when one editor attempted to reformat the episode table over at Who Is America? by changing all of the paragraphs into bulleted lists. He proceeded with an edit warring posture but things seemingly cooled down for a few days following the intervention of a few other editors. Then today, two separate debates raged on here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Bulletizing episode summaries at Who Is America? and here: Talk:Who Is America?#Plot Summaries. The editor pushing for this bulleted list change attempted to change MOS:TV without a consensus and quickly engaged in editor warring-type behavior over there. And, after an attempt to determine local consensus, he promptly closed the discussion on the article's talk page. All in all, its been rather a mess and a headache. The sort of stuff I try to avoid on Wikipedia. Maybe you have a take on the whole thing. Thought I'd at least point it out to you. Hope your holidays have been well. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

BoogerD, indeed I am! Back from the pool of family drama that always arises around the holidays. I saw that Joey was back. Eventually he'll be indef'ed, and it'll be another hassle dealt with. I've got a bit to look over for the next few days, so I'll take a look at the discussions and see what the result is. Thanks for bringing them to me! -- Alex^TW 09:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolution

On the draft, you are adament that "Resolution" is the only episode of 2019. This is WP:SYNTHESIS, as you are drawing up a conclusion from an article only that stating the next full series is in 2020, and makes no references to specials in 2019, so hypothetically, there could be two or more specials in 2019, which doesn't contradict the article source. The sentence is also argueably WP:TRIVIA. You also claim that when Chibnall said the Daleks wouldn't appear in Series 11, he was including the special as well, and "two weeks weeks left of shooting" means that two weeks until filming "Resolution" ends. This is not made clear at all in the article, and therefore this should be left out. Kind regards TedEdwards 19:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source backing up the statement of hypothetically, there could be two or more specials in 2019? I certainly haven't seen any; I'd be ecstatic if there were more specials in 2019! Unfortunately, it's not the case, and sources only back up the fact that the New Year's Special is set for 2019, and Series 12 is set for 2020, with no further episodes. Either way, It will be the first and only installment of the time travel series in 2019, making “Resolution” the only new Doctor Who we’ll see on TV in 2019. As for the Daleks, Chibnall stated on 19 July that “We seem to be filming 11 episodes, and it’s only a series of 10”, and the very next day, “We’ve got two weeks left of shooting", with filming concluding on 4 August (the two weeks later). Hence, the talk about filming includes all eleven episodes, as the filming blocks included eleven episode with no traditional break between filming the series finale and the special episode. -- Alex^TW 10:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, then, why not use those sources you've given that explicitly state there's one episode in 2019, which the one used in the draft doesn't. btw. when I say hypothetically, I'm refering to events that could theoretically happen without contradicting the sources in the article, so I'm not saying they're actually happening (or even likely to happen) and I wouldn't write that in any article, I was only said that to try to point out a flaw in the use of the Radio Times source. Hope I made myself clear. In regards to the Dalek issue, I admit I'm still a bit uneasy, but the source you gave seems to confirm that Chibnall was basically lying about the Daleks. Happy holidays and enjoy the special! TedEdwards 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

btw. I've changed the source saying that Resolution is the only episode of 2019 to the cinema blend one you gave. And regarding your username change, it says on your userpage Alex 21. Not much to say. Twenty-something year old Australian guy who's a serious avid TV series watcher, and more addicted to Doctor Who. Hence the name. You might want to change that :). TedEdwards 09:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, cheers! -- Alex^TW 23:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hello Alex. I gotta tell ya I'm gonna miss the Whovian part of your old username. Well it's almost 2019 for you so I hope you have a safe and happy Journey into the new year! MarnetteD|Talk 03:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: And a Happy New Year to you! Unfortunately I will too, as AlexTheWhovian is my handle on most sites, but I've received too many negative comments in the past about my relationship to Doctor Who-related articles. New Year, New Me? -- Alex^TW 03:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. Also it means your ready to take on the role at the 20th regeneration. Oh wait does the War Doctor mess with that number too :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

I hope you can update your signature (it should directly link to Alex 21). Happy new year! Hhkohh (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hhkohh, I'll update it today. Cheers! -- Alex^TW 23:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

New name

For a second, I saw "Alex 21" editing and felt they might be impersonating you, then I came to your page and saw it was you! Will take some getting used to for sure on my part ha. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha, no worries! Still the same old me, minus the Whovian (see above). It'll take some getting used to on my part as well. Happy New Year! -- Alex^TW 23:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Alex 21!

Happy New Year!

Alex 21,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Hhkohh (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Multi-camera setup/Single-camera setup over at Homecoming

Hey Alex,

Hoping you might take a look at another little instance of an editor raising hell over a non-issue. For the last two days there has been an editor over at Homecoming that has been debating whether the series is single-camera or multi-camera. I would understand one's insistence in having a source for such information before a series is released, when it might be possible to not know one way or the other, but once a series has premiered it is generally clear which set-up is used and such is information is covered by WP:PRIMARY, being the series itself. I think the editor is confused and is under the impression that single-camera setup implies that only one camera is ever used to film any given scene. Obviously that is not the case, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of film knows that in many situations in film and television more than one camera is utilized to increase the "coverage" in a scene. "Multi-camera" vs "Single-camera" rather refers to the specific setup of cameras and the construction of sets. In a multi-camera sitcom, you'll have a set with three walls and there will be three cameras setup in a specific formation all pointing at the same thing. In a single-camera, you will usually have a full four-walled set and the camera setup generally involves one camera situated somewhere in the set. Though, in single-camera you may also have other cameras utilized for close-ups or wide shots but the basic "setup" of the series is still single-camera as it is defined in film and television production. Anyways, myself and Drovethrughosts have reverted the editor a few times and I am concerned at this point of passing the threshold into edit warring. Hope you might take a look at the situation and intervene if necessary. Of all the big hullabaloos around here in the last few weeks this one seems to be the most cut and dry. Hoping your new year is good thus far, BoogerD (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out this rather large conversation that transpired over at the talk page for the article. The conclusions that other editors were drawing would seem to effect numerous, numerous television series articles. I'd truly appreciate if you'd take a look at the one comment I left on the page: Talk:Homecoming (TV series)#Infobox sourcing. – BoogerD (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

24 Hours (again)

Hello again, here asking for a bit more help on Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back. Season 2 premiere just finished airing tonight, but I am trying to add a new part for the column. With there now being two seasons, I would love to format it like Lip Sync Battle Shorties where it lists the number episode for the season, as well as overall. Been struggling trying to figure it out for the 24 Hours page, so if you could help out, that would be great. Thanks again in advance, and thanks for how you've helped so far. Magitroopa (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox television season/fullname expensive parser function

Hey Alex, I was looking over the code at Template:Infobox television season/fullname and its connection the infobox. That template is called 8 times as a parameter of {{Ifexist check redirect/if}}, which itself uses {{Ifexist check redirect}}, which uses #ifexist, which according to MW:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#ifexist limits should is limited in the amount of calls that can be used in a page. We could cut this in half if we remove the section_redirect check. What do you think? --Gonnym (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'm working on something which gives an answer whether it is an article or redirect with the same check so that lowers it to 4 and still retains the same functions. --Gonnym (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Olive branch

Hi Alex, I courteously invite you to take a breath and to reconsider the comment you just made at Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), and again remind you of the policy at WP:CIVIL. We share the aim of improving the Doctor Who WikiProject. Have a great day, U-Mos (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I'm thinking about starting an RFC here for whether I should or not... -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Alex, I do have to agree with U-Mos that your comments about RfCs are uncivil and serve no purpose in resolving your disputes with U-Mos. --TedEdwards 01:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's true. I'll be happy to revise them once the editor is happy to actually discuss the content, instead of automatically taking it to RFC or RM in poor faith of all other editors. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

My Spy

Hey Alex,

I know you're swamped with a million other Wiki things at the moment, however I was hoping you might take a look at something for me. I'm messaging you though to take a look at a film article I was editing today: My Spy. Currently in a dispute with another editor over content in the article. I had included writing in the article regarding various producers on the film sourced to Deadline and Hollywood Reporter articles. However, the other editor removed the content as they said the information was "irrelevant". When I objected and pointed out that that was a more opinion-based reasoning rather than anything based in WP or MOS policy they responded by saying, "Relevant according to you. I conceded on some aspects of your edit but Wikipedia is a collaboration. I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you. Additionally, i express the film’s titled because, before that date it was unknown. What is your reason for not noting it?" I'm trying to proceed with caution here and avoid an edit war. Perhaps, you'll take a look at the article. Get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) As I noticed this message BoogerD, I thought I might chip in. A discussion should be started at Talk:My Spy with TheMovieGuy to avoid the edit war. In regard to my opinion, I think it's ridiculous to say that naming the executive producers is "irrelevant"; it's info relevant to the film is it meets WP:Verifiability. However, saying this, I notice that TMG said I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you., and then YoungForever agreed with you, so is that an end to the dispute? There does seem to be a WP:OWN stance coming for TMG., evidenced by their quote I quoted above. And TMG, just because something isn't in a infobox doesn't mean it can't be stated in the rest of the article; that's a ridculous idea. --TedEdwards 00:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Ted. Discuss this with TMG on the article's talk page. But per their statement (which does indeed smack of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) (also, Wikipedia is a collaboration, and then I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone? Wow!), it seems that there should be no further edit-warring in the article, given WP:EDITCONSENSUS from another editor. If the discussion can't come to an agreement, then WP:3O is also an option. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If somebody else agreed that it belongs as you say, then, in this user’s opinion, it belongs. I cede. TheMovieGuy

Bandersnatch infobox

Hi. I noticed you changed the infobox to that for a film. It would be helpful if you could comment at Talk:Black_Mirror: Bandersnatch#What is Bandersnatch?, where the third point I opened for discussion is what infobox to use. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 03:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Critics' year-end lists

Hey Alex,

Hoping to get your opinion on something. What do you make of these "Critics' year-end lists" subsections found here: Sharp Objects and here: Crazy Ex-Girlfriend? I haven't been able to find any other sections like them in other television series articles. Do you think it's notable enough for inclusion? Does it need its own subsection? Should it be removed or maybe reformatted? I just ran across it during the last hour and was hoping to get someone else's opinion on it. Message me back as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Considering both lists seem to backed up by reliable sources, they seem notable enough; it's quite a good indication of how good the critics thought the shows were. The fact that these lists aren't on many other articles isn't a reason to remove; Wikipedia needs new ideas, which tend to start off on one article, and also other stuff exists. --TedEdwards 16:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Good points. I hadn't/haven't formed an opinion just yet so it was good to hear someone else's thoughts on the matter. I will say that I'm not sure that the lists belong on the main article for Crazy Ex-Girlfriend though seeing as the series has separate articles for each season. It would seem to make the most sense for them to exist on the article's for each specific season. – BoogerD (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Repeated improper (ironic) use of the "Thank" function, and hounding

Alex, please stop this now. It is an abuse of the thank function to say, as you have been doing for over a year now, "I am watching your edits, and I don't like them". On a related note, I would appreciate it if you stopped watching my edits: yeah, the most recent one was to a page you probably have on your watchlist, but using the thank function to try to intimidate me, as you have done repeatedly including today, is really, really inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. You mentioned me on a talk page I am watching, and deliberately decided not to ping me. I wonder why? Trying to undermine editors without them knowing? Anyways, I've told you to get off my page. No more posting from you here, please and thank you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No, rather I was trying to ... overmine (?) you. Given the amount of unjustified abuse you've put me through (including this pretty blatant "no, no amount of evidence you can provide will be good enough for me" trolling and these unambiguous personal attacks) I might have liked if you were the one who inserted some of the plagiarized text so I could "zing" you, but my point was specifically that it wasn't you who was at fault. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have specifically told you to stop posting to my talk page. Cease immediately, else you will be faced with a report similar to those you threaten and intimidate multiple other editors with. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)