User talk:Alec2011

Welcome

Hello, Alec2011! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Antonio Lopez (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Archives

User talk:Alec2011/2008-2009

Aaron Stone

Hi Alec--I see you are (unfortunately) involved in a war with Coral Bay regarding the dates of return atList of Aaron Stone episodes. You say you have a source, but it is not listed, even though you said it was referenced. Can you put in the source? I don't want you to get trapped in a WP:3RR, which you are close to doing. If you don't know how to add the ref, I can do it for you. Just trying to help, Coral Bay can be a stubborn editor. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your edit comments/source. Just trying to help. Coral Bay believes in the "my way or the highway" version of Wikipedia. I wouldn't make anymore edits--someone may report you for WP:3RR, which you have technically violated. (Don't worry, I'd never report it!) I tried to find an online source myself to help, but was unsuccessful. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Coral Bay does not discuss, a problem which bothers many of us. Although it has not been proven, there are a number of editors who believe Coral Bay is the former 1989 Rosie, who has been banned a number of times for warring. You might recognize that name, she regularly patrolled (and warred) mostly on various TV show list pages. I just tried to intervene because I didn't want you pulled in to her messes.  ;) Have a good weekend.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she broke the rules. It happens a lot. We've tried discussions to no avail. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not sure about your argument that you used the edit tab instead of the undo button. Is that really valid? I'm not so sure. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But the thing is you don't have a reference that you can add to the page, right?. I'd not touch it for 24hours, butmopen a discussion if you want. She likely wont join in.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But that's her whole argument, it isn't listed at that reference. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

wait wait wait!

you are right, it is there. She doesn't seem to realize that. I'd leave a message on her talk page, tell her to read the ref. SHe's not reading, just assuming....

I got it!! ----->delete the second reference and duplicate the first for both places, that's her problem I think. They are different, but don't look it at first glance. Then leave her a message to read the reference. Also put that message in your edit summary (politely)--just make sure you delete the right one.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done, she can't complain now, IMO. And she did get caught in the 3RR by not reading both references. I'm glad we finally got it sorted out. It's so hard to do on talk pages! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, IMO=in my opinion.) I really don’t think her issue was the “Season 2” issue, as much as the fact that she looked at the wrong reference and didn’t see what you saw. (They really looked like the same reference twice but weren’t.) The Feb 2010 is a fine compromise since “premiere” isn’t technically used, but I actually think you could have gotten by with Feb 24. Good job. No-I wasn’t a part of it at all, I just brought myself into it. I honestly didn’t want you to get banned, and Rosie picks fights with everyone. I feel good that you finally proved her wrong. Cruel, I know, but the same “my way or highway” really bothers me. She thinks she owns the pages. I'm out. Have a good weekend. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Coral Bay

Me, I'd just stay out of it for now. But I know how frustrating she can be. Regarding her being banned (either again or for good), let me just say "someone is working on in"! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: HM Forever

No, I'd say the usage of the "Hannah Montana Forever" branding on that page is vague. Does "Forever" refer to season 4, or does it refer to old episodes? —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Production codes

You know better than this. I reverted the previous addition of these because they were uncited. You need to provide a source or remove them. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And again. Marking this edit as minor was inappropriate as it was clearly not a minor edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Suite Life on Deck season 2 end/season 3 commencement date

home.disney.go.com/tv is not an appropriate reference. While some video may appear at some time for some people, it's unverifiable for the 6 billion people who don't live in the United States because Disney redirects the url to the Disney site for individual countries. For example, Australians get to see home.disney.com.au. There's simply no way for people outside the US to verify the claim. We can edit war over this for the next few days if you want to be blocked, but the best option at this time is to leave the article as it was until such time as the epsiode has aired so we can all verify it. The article doesn't need to be fixed today! --AussieLegend (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Production codes

Please stop adding uncited production codes to Hannah Montana (season 4). If they aren't cited, they don't get added. As I indicated on my talk page,[1] Showfax is not a reliable source. It uses casting information that is subject to change. This has been discussed at WP:RSN. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Montana "|num_episodes="

This edit summary is confusing. The section that you referred to in the summary,[2] refers to Hannah Montana (season 4) not displaying correctly in List of Hannah Montana episodes and has nothing to do with the main article. This aside, {{Infobox television}} says that "|num_episodes=" is for the "the number of episodes produced" and "a reliable source is required if greater than the number aired". So far, only 85 episodes have aired so a citation from a reliable source is required for a figure greater than that. The citation at List of Hannah Montana episodes says that season four will consist of 12 episodes, making the total 97, not 101, the figure that you added. Please do not change the contents of "|num_episodes=" without providing a citation. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Alec2011. You have new messages at AussieLegend's talk page.
Message added 00:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Alec2011. You have new messages at Silvergoat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hannah Montana. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please see the discussion at Talk:Hannah Montana#Number of episodes for relevant information. AussieLegend (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Production codes (again)

Where are you getting the production codes you've added to Hannah Montana (season 4)? If they can't be verified, they will be removed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting them from Showfax (before the pages got deleted) and from the Physical Copy of the Disney Channel schedule. Besides the fact that the prod. codes posted over at The Suite Life on Deck, Wizards of Waverly Place are not be referenced and yet they don't get reverted. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, "other stuff exists on other pages" is never a good argument. If you find uncited production codes on other pages, delete them by all means, but they can't be used to justify the existence of uncited production codes on other pages. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am new here but I doing get things do need references. It seems though it is hard to get the sources back if it is from show fax. I do some what think it is a tusted site but not that realiable. As far as the wizards and suite life episodes, they were able to be reached at itunes at one time. You would be able to right click on the episode and it would take you too the production code. So I don't know whats going on but the funcion does not work anymore. I have noticed on the iCarly episodes season 4 production season 3, once the titles have been confirmed by show fax they are put up using that as the reference but for that sake Dan is taking pics which is matching up to the episode. you could always try to do something like that but it is to late now for Hannah and there is no vomantition with the producer on the titles. Saylaveer (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

If you see a maintenance template like {{citation needed}} on a page, don't remove it unless you replace it with a citation. Removing the template with a comment and adding an excuse in the edit summary, as you did here and here is in appropriate. There are a series of warning templates specifically for use on the talk pages of people who do things like that, {{Uw-tdel1}}, {{Uw-tdel2}}, {{Uw-tdel3}} and {{Uw-tdel4}}. Your excuses for removing {{citation needed}} from Hannah Montana (season 4) does not support the challenged claim. "Season has aired in HD Widescreen format" and "HD Citation taked away as on iTunes it says Hannah Montana Season 4 with HD next to it" only supports the unchallenged claim that Season 4 was filmed in HD. It does not support a claim that it is the only season filmed in HD. You need to provide a citation that does. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look on iTunes, it is the only season on iTunes to feature the HD logo. Season 3 was not filmed in HD as it isn't aired in Widescreen on Disney Channel HD and the ew DC logo at the end of the show as it does appear in the Season 4 episodes. This has happened to WOWP and TSLOD as when DC transitions their shows the HD feature is that they are filmed in Widescreen HD, as before they were filmed in Fullscreen Standard format.

Also, why is it that Season 1-Season 3 on iTunes doesn't have HD episodes however Season 4 is the only season that has HD episodes on iTunes? It's the only season that was filmed in HD. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(I've moved your response back here so that the conversation remains all in one place, rather than fragmenting it.)

That S4 is the only season to feature the HD logo is irrelevant. All that means is that iTunes is only offering S4 in HD. It doesn't mean that the other seasons weren't filmed in HD. Assuming that it does is WP:SYNTH, which we've discussed on numerous occasions. You need a citation that directly supports the claim that S4 is the only season filmed in HD; i.e. it needs to say somewhere in the source that S4 is the only season filmed in HD or that the other seasons weren't filmed in HD. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that the other seasons weren't filmed in HD. Season 4 is the only season that was filmed in HD, you can tell by the quality of the episodes and that they are widescreen for season 4 only. - Alec2011 (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal observations like that constitute original research. You still need a source for the claim. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So does that give me the right to take all the "and became the last Disney Channel sitcom to transition from standard definition to high definition in the process." & "Filmized appearance Season 4-present" off of the Hannah Montana page then, as well as the other Wizards of Waverly Place and The Suite Lfie on Deck since Season 1 and Season 2 of Wizards and Season 1 of The Suite Life on Deck could've been filmed in HD as well? - Alec2011 (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wizards episodes

Besides that press release so me an adequete source that actually says that there will be 35 episodes for season 3. Beacause the only episodes I heard about coming up are from season 4 NOT season 3. QuasyBoy 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

About the Showfax source so far it has been reliable in terms of episodes titles and production codes, mostly for the latter. And of the production codes that were found on Showfax, the codes begin with the number 4, not 3, indicating that the episodes of Wizards that are coming up are season 4 episodes, NOT season 3 episodes. As for that press release that was released nearly a year ago, how do you know that it is still valid? For all we know the producers decided to go into season 4 story lines instead of making additional episodes for season 3. Lastly, If there are really 5 episodes left in season 3 as you claim (not including the 3 episodes that will air in October), the episodes titles would have leaked by now. QuasyBoy 21:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm done debating, I will leave your edit as is. I guess we will just wait and see if those 5 extra season 3 episodes are still valid. QuasyBoy 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wizards episode production codes

You are only one that seem to stuck on thinking that those aren't the correct production codes. Yes, I viewed them on Showfax first, But Showfax is reliable in terms of production code info especially if it matched with an episode title. Since you only seem to be looming over episode info for Disney Channel shows, Showfax being used as a reference is a non-no. Also, AussieLegend clearly didn't have a problem with the edit that I made considering that the season begins in a week. Also, those production codes are on TV.com now, and not "anyone can edit" TV.com, the site has reliable administrators that edit such info, (ie. writers, directors and production codes). But I am done arguing with you, I will the page as you want it. QuasyBoy 20:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:20100830082533!Hannah Montana Logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:20100830082533!Hannah Montana Logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:20100830082533!Hannah Montana Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:20100830082533!Hannah Montana Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 06:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hannah Montana Forever Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hannah Montana Forever Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Comment

OK, what was the need of of you regurgitating by edit summary, It was just my opinion. Also if info was wrong, It wouldn't bother putting it there in the first place. Adding references with production codes are not a common practice on Wikipedia, either they are added or they are not. Production codes for Disney Channel shows are obtained either in the pre-production process (Showfax.com, which you deemed is unreliable), TV.com (which can only be trusted after the episode airs, at least) or buying the episodes from iTunes, which I don't bother doing. But like I said since you have problem with this, I am no longer going to back and forth with you anymore. QuasyBoy 18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jessie

I already removed that show is premiering in the fall in the show's page. Also the show is not in the same in category as Austin and Ally in this edit that you made. [3] The show is in pre-production for series unlike Austin and Ally which I believe wasn't picked up. QuasyBoy 23:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OK QuasyBoy 01:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(/2008-2009)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of (/2008-2009), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.automatedtrader.net/glossary/User_talk:Ypetrachenko.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"Tricks"

No one is trying to trick anybody. Everyone agrees that "So Random!" was going to be the third season of "Sonny with a Chance". The article even says that. When they began filming, they were filming thinking they were going to call it the third season of "Sonny with a Chance", so they started the production code at 301. There were months with no official statement about the name of the show, and no official statement about the status. After Lovato said that she would not return, they started to market it as a new show, saying that "So Random!" was "introduced" in "Sonny with a Chance".

That means that any name we put the article at, someone can argue that it's the wrong name. There just isn't a 100% right answer.

Splitting the articles up seems the cleanest answer, though. Episodes that were called "Sonny with a Chance" go in a "Sonny with a Chance" article. Episodes that were called "So Random!" go in a "So Random!" article. The format descriptions go in an article about the show with that format. The only real problem is the 3xx production code on season 1 episodes, and that can be explained in the article pretty easily.—Kww(talk) 12:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Alec2011. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 18:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

So Random!

Just a friendly warning that you should be careful with your edits at So Random! You don't want to breach 3RR. I've reported Dcupdates11 at WP:ANI and WP:AN3 so hopefully he'll be sorted out soon and then we can fix up the messes at So Random! and its episode list. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Alec2011. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 15:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PrankStars

I would like to discuss PrankStars with you. Just because it is from ZOO Productions, that does not mean it is not a Disney Channel Original Series. It is listed as a series on the Disney Channel Medianet site. Also, we cannot speculate that it is not one. If Disney Channel announced it, it would be best to keep it as an original series. Other shows are made by other production companies as well, such as So Random!, Fish Hooks, Shake It Up, A.N.T. Farm, and more. --DisneyFriends (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Jesse TV Series Logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:Jesse TV Series Logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Jessie episodes

The issue of how multiple writers are listed is a style issue but the correct way is shown in the articles that have reached featured status: wp:Featured lists#Episodes. Wikipedia:Featured articles are exemplars of the best of wiki and the goal of any article is to reach featured status. Every featured episode list I saw listed multiple writers with &s and not breaks. You gave contrary examples from lists that are not at the level of featured list of episodes. They are just examples of doing it wrong and shouldn't be used as guides. Look at the featured lists and try to emulate how they do it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Does making the assumption that just because there's breaks between writers makes an episode page bad or doing it wrong? Or just using &'s makes a page better than one that doesn't? Sure a lot of pages are using that, but what if there are 3 or 4 writers, that'll be a pretty big column. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is purely a consistency issue and in my opinion pretty minor. I don't particularly care one way or the other and I think this is a pretty minor style issue but when I see every featured list do it consistently one way that is a pretty strong indication that is the preferred style. It is not "wrong" to put the writers on separate lines, it just doesn't conform to recommended style. I expect that if this article were to go for featured list status we would be told to conform. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

So I could just go to all the other pages with breaks and remove them and edit them to look like everyone else's? To be honest, I don't think any Disney series will make it to being on the featured list as it doesn't reach the ratings of any of the shows listed on that page. I honestly don't care either way as well, I prefer the breaks method as it keeps the column small and when the instance of (Teleplay by) or (Story by) so everything is the same, not one episode row is bigger than another, etc. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally prefer the breaks as well - it looks better to me too. I wouldn't go changing existing lists either, it really is a very minor issue and if nobody is making an issue of it, leave it be. The only reason this is an issue in this article is because two editors are changing the list and it is starting to look a bit like an edit war. I just brought up the features lists to try to give a different perspective to show that one way IS preferred. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Understandable, however the person who keeps editing back did the same thing I'm doing on The Suite Life on Deck, but now won't let me do the same thing. I'm glad someone understands what I'm doing and that you shed a light on the featured lists as well. Gives a great perspective. I personally think it should stay the way it is and open a discussion on the Talk page until something is worked out. his reverts are pretty pointless as well. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

QuasyBoy (talk · contribs) is involved in a lot of TV shows and episode lists (much more than Disney stuff), is pretty familiar with how things are normally done and been around for a pretty long time on the project. He has reverted some of my edits and is sometimes abrupt. Generally he is right, though. I suggest just dropping it and letting him have his way, and his way is sort of "correct". This issue is too minor to get concerned about. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

To answer Alec2011, who left a message in my talk page, The reason why I didn't bother using ampersands in the On Deck episode list is because I am not a fan of that series, I only made a few edits here and there. Converting the Jessie episode list to a featured article is not my mission at all, I just see that ampersands is widely used in episode list articles and to be honest they decrease the article size, which is why they are used. But whatever, I'm tired of arguing about this petty issue. This is the third time I'm arguing with Alec2011, about such petty things, who only comes on Wikipedia to edit Disney Channel articles create fanfiction which is against the rules per WP:SOAP. QuasyBoy 02:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Those pages that you created in your userspace may be just for you, but they are still blatant fan fiction per WP:SOAP. I already told DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) about this (User talk:DragonflySixtyseven#Whistle blowing) and he deleted one of your pages if look in your main user page. QuasyBoy 16:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. QuasyBoy 17:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I used a line break there because the first name was on up and last was down and not aligned, that's all. QuasyBoy 15:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess the internet browser that I have shows it differently. QuasyBoy 18:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

15.4 inches. QuasyBoy 18:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. Its 1280x800. QuasyBoy 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it did. :) QuasyBoy 19:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here you go: [4] QuasyBoy 19:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. :) QuasyBoy 02:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Austin & ally tv series logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:Austin & ally tv series logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

iCarly S. 5 "&" vs. "And"

Hello, Alec2011. I would like to bring up some information I found about how the Writers' Guild of America sees "&" and "and" as different. "The ampersand is used by the Writers Guild of America to denote when two writers collaborated on a specific script, rather than having rewritten another writer's work. In screenplays, two authors joined with & collaborated on the script, while two authors joined with and worked on the script at different times and may not have consulted each other at all. In the latter case, they both contributed enough significant material to the screenplay to receive credit but did not work together (more than likely one was hired to rewrite the previous writer's script).". This can be linked to the WGA's FAQ page. For now, I will change back the "&'s" to "and's". --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, however we have to follow Wikipedia standards. These standards use "&" ampersands to refer that 2 writers wrote the episode weather they wrote the episode together or not. However it's presented in the show or credits matter's to the WGA because they have to but in Wikipedia's terms, it just notes that 2 writers worked on the episode. On Wikipedia, we use "&" for 2 writers and "and" for 3 or more writers separated by comma's. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Stick with wiki standards. (see #List of Jessie episodes) We generally don't care how a set of writers collaborated. My personal preference would be to follow exactly how the credits appear in the episode. That will likely match WGA standards and could be backed up by just stating that is how the credits were displayed when used. In practice I'll just follow the standards. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree, Wikipedia does not care how 2 writers collaborated on the script, they just want to know 2 writers wrote the episode. It makes sense to use "and" because the WGA standards use it on TV but on Wiki the standard is to use "&" for 2 writers and "and" for 3 or more. - Alec2011 (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with GeraldoPerez. I would want it to match WGA standards. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree too, but as I told you before, we have to use Wikipedia standards that why I kept changing it. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: iCarly S. 5 "&" vs. "And

Interesting info. Can you show me the source where they tell us to do that? --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Alec2011. You have new messages at Talk:List of Austin & Ally episodes#Season premiere.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Adding references to an article

If you going to added references to an article, could please use {{Cite web}} from now on, Thanks. QuasyBoy 21:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

iCarly Season 5 - Production Codes

I don't know about you, but I believe the production codes I had listed are correct. I gave you straight evidence to back up my edit. As I put in my edit summary, Here's a YouTube video Dan posted on Jun. 23 when he was filming iStill Psycho: /watch?v=B4jTlPtjfCU&list=UUYMs9CKScLfQnS. Here's an article with Michelle going to set on Jun. 13: http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/06/16/michelle-obama-icarly-episode-video/. If you pin-point from the week of May 2, 2011 you can figure out the production codes of these episodes since you know when they were shot. Week 7 was the week of June 13-17 where the Obama episode was shot in. So that makes it's production code 407. The "iStill Psycho" episode was shot that following week (Week 8) and seeing how it's made up of two production episodes share the codes for 408-409. The blooper episode is obviously the last one made which makes it 413. That should be as much evidence as there is - Jabrona - 07:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite certain there wasn't a week they took off from filming. Dan had 13 production episodes to film for the season (that was the second half of Season 4) and May 2, 2011 to July 22, 2011 is 12 weeks right there. These episodes happen to be done weekly. Miranda left for her tour by the end of the 11th week so the episode shot the following week may not include her, and the other one is obviously the blooper episode that was the last to be made. As for the video evidence of when "iStill Psycho" was made, I'm sure it was made during that week. Dan is known for uploading things that happen on that very day. There's not a doubt in my mind that episode wasn't shot during that week let alone that very day. If you keep up with the videos Dan uploads on his account you would be convinced of this as I am. - Jabrona - 23:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I was wondering what site was the source for production coding. I had no clue so I just stuck with the evidence of other things that were to some use, and what I had said here above was the best research I could gather up. I wouldn't be surprised if I was right though, but I won't make any changes regarding the codes. - Jabrona - 00:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:All the way album cover.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:All the way album cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

DCOM template

Are you referring to this format: [5], You made a typo on my talk page. Anyway I am not fan of the new format, either. It was much better when the films were all arranged in one order, not four different ones. QuasyBoy 06:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly QuasyBoy 17:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to revert it back to the way it was, feel free. QuasyBoy 18:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just revert to the link I put up and save it. Unless you want me to do it. QuasyBoy 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I'll do it then. QuasyBoy 23:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

iCarly - "iBalls"

My mistake. I couldn't find a promo linked online to use as a reference and figured I could get away without one seeing that the episode is airing next week anyway. There was likely to be more promos to air by then for people to see. Nice to hear from you again. - Jabrona - 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing "and" to "&"

I hate to start discussion about this but why are you doing this. Could you point me to the rules that states that ampersands should only be used in episode lists. The word "and" is sometimes used for particular reference, when two television writers generally do not work together. There are some television series that do use the word "and" and not "&". Ampersands are generally used for writing teams. I'm bringing this up because, this edits that you made here and here caught my attention. QuasyBoy 01:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am already aware of the discussion you with AussieLegend and with the discussion you had with Sunshineisles2, you say that there are Wikipedia guidelines about only using ampersands in episode lists, but where where these so-called guidelines? And referring back to your discussion AussieLegend, even he says that the word "and" can be used in some cases. QuasyBoy 01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly confused by what AussieLegend said. He says nothing that a comma and the word "and" cannot being used in one instance, you contradicting what he is saying, by some of the edits that you have already made, changing "and" to an ampersand. AussieLegend himself cannot even specifically point out that "&" vs. "," is bad English, per a Wikipedia guideline. Also, what AussieLegend thinks is not "be all, end all", he is an editor like you and I, and sometimes edits be his own preference. QuasyBoy 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That could work to. My point is, the writers should be credited as they were in the episode, a comma, "and" or "&". If there is a specific Wikipedia guideline that says otherwise (using proper English), then we should follow that. QuasyBoy 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, in that shopping example that you used a comma is necessary. When it comes down to it is based on preference. Some of the edits that you have made, have been undone and disagreed with. Perhaps, the next time your edits are undone, it would be best to bring it up in Template talk:Episode list. QuasyBoy 21:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. QuasyBoy 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback at User talk:Kevinbrogers

I've replied to two of your messages at my talk page, in case you were interested. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Victorious

http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/victorious/episodes-season-3/303439 It is the truth list. I mean A Christmas Tori and Blooptorious episodes of season 3 not season 2. (Wnnse (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

iCarly

Hi, Dan Schneider's Twitter adress is totally reliable. (Wnnse (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

iCarly

http://www.nickutopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/IGot-Jungle-Worms-Shooting-Schedule.jpg That's picture? (Wnnse (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC))