User talk:SchrutedIt08

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from Smallville

Thanks for saving that "Kent" summary; I was multi-tabbing with Nikita when I did it, and must have thought I'd already unlocked the hidden summary, as Nikita was doing the same thing with it (got that one right, at least). KnownAlias contact 12:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Just doing my part. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at List of House episodes

There is a discussion underway at List of House episodes about the DVD/Blu-ray table in the article. As a recent contributor to this page your input would be welcomed in the discussion, which you may find at Talk:List of House episodes#Blu-ray nonsence inclusion. Thank you. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS:HASH

Please don't violate MOS when editing featured content. Using the hash mark is unacceptable on Wikipedia, even in column headers, as most recently proven in the proceedings on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Huskies of Honor/archive1 among hundreds of precedents at FAC and FLC, as well as style guidelines I could dig up. Courcelles 02:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not be be crass, but I really don't give a shit about MOS. I just follow what others do. I've been editing on Wikipedia for years and this is the first I've heard of it. There is no sense in having something as bulky and inefficient as "season number" in a column that features such little information. There isn't much room in these tables, so the way I see the less room those columns take up, the better. MOS is fine and all but I prefer a little common sense. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's your attitude towards MOS, please kindly don't make any style changes to pages ranked GA or higher. Getting a page in line with the standards there is quite a bit of work, and remaining in compliance is a requirement for a page continuing to hold such status. And if you're going to apply common sense, remember that those symbols are not understood by- or used by- a large portion of the planet's population. Even in English, as you can see at Number sign, the symbol has many different uses. MOS is quite logical here, but there are ways to get that changed rather than degrading the standards of individual articles- it's been tried before and failed, but you're welcome to make another go at it. Also, most articles here are substandard. Only 16,986 out of 3.6 million have passed a formal review- so copying what others do is usually a path that leads to error. Courcelles 03:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Martin-Scorsese jpg.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Martin-Scorsese jpg.gif. 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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Over There (Fringe) PR

Greetings! I am currently looking for reviewers to look over an article I hope to propose as a FAC: Over There (Fringe). As I see you are a Fringe fan, I thought I might interest you in looking over the article and leaving some comments at the peer review when you get a chance. Thank you so much! Much appreciated, Ruby2010 comment! 22:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi. Could you help me clean up the mess? What I'm trying to do is make List of Criminal Minds: Suspect Behavior episodes look like List of CSI: Miami episodes (for example), but for some reason, it isn't working for me. Can you help?98.234.170.224 (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Somethingwicked.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Somethingwicked.jpg. 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) 10:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Musics on Smallville Series finale

Hi, I just wonder if you have the complete list on songs played on the 2 hours series of Smallville?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry but I do not. Try Google. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that there's only one song played during the series finale, am I correct? I took your advice, it is Breathe Again by Sara Bareilles, played at Lois and Clark's wedding, in case you also want to listen as well. You can hear it through this link from YouTube.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yean, Smallville will be missed, just as I've missing Buffy the Vampire Slayer after 7 years of run on television despite it now continues as a comic book series from Dark Horse Comics. I kinda doubt DC Comics will continues Smallville as a comic book series as well since what appealing of the show was seeing how Clark Kent and Lex Luthor they from friends to enemies, but I could be wrong, since Batman Beyond returns as a comic book series.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of creating a new article for Smallville listing all the songs played throughout the course of the series for fans to compile their own soundtrack, but there are alot. Not sure I can keep track of them all, plus don't have much info. Here's what I found: tunefind.com--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine just as long as you think there's sufficient notability. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You think Smallville will be back as a comic book series, the same way as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, and Charmed? That probably would have to bring at least some of the writers from the show to work on it, if they want to. They reason that Buffy and Angel still contines after these two tv shows ended because Joss Whedon is a comic book nuts--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know. I don't actually even watch Smallville, nor do I read comic books. I'm really not the right person to ask. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

TV episode summaries

Regarding your revert, if anything it may be violating Wikipedia's Fair Use policy: an attributed quote of an episode summary from a press release intended for re-use is certainly covered by United States fair use law.
I believe it also passes our fair use policy, but it's a valid concern -- I've asked someone who will know. Amalthea 11:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I've seen you around. I think you're awesome. 'Nuf said. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 06:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Somethingwicked.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Somethingwicked.jpg. 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) 05:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Futurama#Why are we using a WRONG order

I need your help. Can you tell him, that the broadcast order is the correct order. I didn't find a guideline which confirms that. Thanks -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do. Technically, he is correct. The production order is the intended order and considered the true continuity of the series. The rest of the Futurama seasons are ordered by production code, rather than bradcast order. I don't really see a reason not to do this for season six also. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed Serienfan2010 came here instead of going to the talk page. Broadcast order is an arbitrary order that Comedy Central (and previously Fox) chooses to air the series in for ratings purposes; there is nothing correct about the broadcast order. Also, if you look at theInfosphere.org (the Futurama wiki), you'll notice even there, everyone uses production order and all continuity is based on the production order. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

True Blood

Somebody's vandalized the viewing numbers on TB Season 4. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Best thing we can do is revert and see if he does it again. Leaving messages on IP's talk pages is rarely helpful, IMO, but if he persists that'll be the next step. After that an admin can be contacted and we can see about having him blocked for vandalism. We'll keep an eye on it, see if it happens again. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Re a Haven director: Do you have a source?

You'll find out the reality soon enough. (*) -- Ihutchesson (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Since IMDb is user-submitted (meaning anyone can add anything they like) it is not a reliable source. If you can find one of those stating Southam directed the episode, it can be added. Or we can just wait until after the episode airs. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

HELLO!

I would like you to know that I was right about what the 10th episode of Happily Divorced is going to be. Yet, you kept deleating my work. Maybe you should check next time and not be so stuborn. Alright, glad you agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.15.34 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed keep deleting (no "A") your work because you refused to cite reliable sources. You witnessed the information, that's fine, but adding it to Wikipedia without a third party publication to verify the information is called original research, which is strictly prohibited. I'm not being stubborn (two "B's"), I'm simply following policy. If I hadn't reverted you, another of the editors would have. I'm sorry you didn't take the time to understand the rules before editing and I'm also sorry you feel the need to validate yourself by wasting both of our time with the ridiculous, misspelled gloating. Glad you agree. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it quite hypocritical that you have slammed this user over a couple of simple spelling mistakes. A crime which you have also committed in your previous post regarding a Futurama "bradcast" order. So sadly for you sir it seems as if you are the one who needs to validate themselves by wasting someones time with ridiculous, misspelling police work only to be a perpetrator of said misdemeanor in your earlier work.

Glad you agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.6.28 (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Teen Wolf (season 1)

Hello SchrutedIt08, what is the intention of you writing the episode name “Code Breaker” incorrectly and apparently protecting that spelling without comment? I do not think distributing variant information can be justified without providing a better source than those linked below that article. — Ochristi (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the spelling was intentional, writers will do that sometimes. But after checking a number of different sources I now see otherwise. My mistake. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on X-Files season articles

Hi Schrutedlt08. I've seen you edit season articles of The X-Files concerning the listing of "mythology" episodes, so I thought I'd let you know I've started a discussion on a new way of handling them here. The project isn't exactly a busy one so I thought I'd solicit opinions by asking around relevant editors. Any input you have would be great. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 12:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot - TVD

I see your getting irritated about the task you keep having to undertake (understandably). Might I suggest you nominate the page for semi-protection? It's a permanent issue and I will back it. Jayy008 (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's getting a little tiresome, yeah. Thank you for the advice. I've gone ahead and requested semi-protection here. I'm not sure what the policy is on backing request, but there's the link if you need it. Thanks. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any policy, but people get involved if it's denied or whatever. Some of the admins just think we can manage as they're not the ones who have to deal with it. I hope it gets approved. Jayy008 (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As do I. I just went through and removed similar material from the Ringer episode list. What is it about The CW that attracts ignorant IP editors? Maybe it's a teenager thing. SchrutedIt08 (talk)

{{unindent]} I think it's definitely just teenagers with attitude, highly annoying. Jayy008 (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the sources for "School of Hard Knocks" and "The Art of Making Art".

Please log on to the following sites for the proof of the writers and the directors on the Desperate Housewives (season 8) page: http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/desperate-housewives-school-of-hard-knocks/EP006723180175 and http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/desperate-housewives-the-art-of-making-art/EP006723180176. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives Episode

And it's on you to decide which source is reliable and which isn't? Sorry, but if tv.com isnt a reliable source, imdb isn't either. still most of the episodes are sourced with imdb? I'd describe that, sorry for being honest, as a hole in your logic! --DamienDarko 13:50, 24. Nov 2011 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamienDarko (talk • contribs) 11:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is definitely not a reliable source and any article using the site to source upcoming episode information will need to be edited and have it removed. And as for your first statement, it is not up to me to decide what constitutes a reliable source and what does not. That information can be found here. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Mentalist

If you look at it, seems silly not to put an air date for episode 6, since it's obvious as to when it's going to air, lol, when you look at the episode list.

Also the futon critic has a project date, for now, that shows the same date as I put. 76.69.206.216 (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I know it seems silly, but rules are rules and we can't add the Oct. 27 date. If we put two and two together, it's called original research and someone else will come along and remove it. "Projected date" on TFC means that's when it's likely to air but has not been confirmed by the network. In a few days CBS will issue a press release for the episode with the air date information and writers/directors/titles, etc. The info can be added then. It's only a few days. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know what "projected date" means. I signed up for e-mails for my shows, so when this particular e-mail comes in, I'll update it, if hasn't already been done. That's the next one on their list of episode. 70.26.187.19 (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

bolded number of episodes

Could you please explain why you are bolding the number of episodes in episode lists? I see no compelling reason to do so, and the Manual of Style clearly advises against gratuitous use of boldtext. --87.78.237.127 (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Inertia mostly. There never used to be a problem with it, so some pages still have them and others don't. I don't add bolded text where it is not already in use. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did here not too long ago. Anyway, no biggie either way, I'm simply a stickler for the MoS. --213.196.212.12 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello SchrutedIt08! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Redirect.

and the edit and re-direct for A New Birth of Freedom. I appreciate it. I didn't notice my mistake till today. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Keep up the good work. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

SOA edits

Regarding the two edits where you sourced the meanings of the episode titles, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I think that was excellent initiative on your part, Schrutedlt08. The bad news is that what we need is a reliable source speaking in regards to the episode telling us what they mean. That way, we are avoiding original research. While you and I might be able to suss out the Spanish language, but our assessments aren't citable. If you are not sure what I mean, please feel free to ask. I won't revert the edits right now, but you should swap them out for sources that are speaking about the episode or series and explain that the titles mean. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, whatever. If the sources are no good then just remove the notes. I'm not sure they are entirely necessary anyway. A lot of TV episodes have weird or obscure titles and don't need to be explained, but the notes were already there before I started editing the page. So keep them or get rid of them, I'm good either way. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SchrutedIt08. You have new messages at Davejohnsan's talk page.
Message added 00:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It happened. If you could pop in and/or catch me up on this whole fiasco, I'd appreciate it. --Davejohnsan (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Grey's Anatomy (season 8). When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things. 1) I have been on Wikipedia for over three years and have made over 10,000 edits. I think the warm welcome is a little irrelevant at this point. 2) The edit I made, if you had looked properly, did remove the reference for the return date, but I replaced it with a reference that not only provided the return date but also the episode title. Separate references for titles and dates are unnecessary if one can cover both, which was the edit I made. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay apologies, must have misread. And I do not look at the history of users before sending them warnings. Also I use twinkle which automatically produces the welcome. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's cool. No harm done. Certainly can't say I'm innocent of that mistake myself. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty Little Liars S2 Episode List

We seem to have conflicting ideas on how this page should be handled. I don't see the harm in adding in episode descriptions prior to their airing, especially if they come from reliable sources. Also, I have seen SpoilerTV used as a reliable source before as their "spoilers" come from reliable sources anyway. Not trying to start a fight, just letting you know my thoughts when editing. Majesdane (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

SpoilerTV is user-generated like IMDb, meaning that anyone can go on there and post whatever they like, no matter if it is verified or not. While they may use information from a reliable source, the site itself is not and therefore cannot be used. And there is no harm in adding summaries prior to their airing, but you must write summaries in your own words. Text that is copied and pasted from other sites, such as SpoilerTV or The Futon Critic, is a copyright violation. It's happened a million times on a million episode list pages and it's always wrong. If you want to add descriptions before the episodes air, keep them brief and make sure they are entirely your own work, otherwise they'll just keep being removed. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I will make sure to do that from now on. Majesdane (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OTH Edit.

Hello, How was the edit I made a copyright violation? And the new edits I made all had references to a reliable source, and a source which had been used above... :/ B.Davis2003 (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO is the rule page that insists that copying text from another site without expressed permission is a copyright infringement. It encourages Wikipedia members to remove such material wherever it is seen. Adding a reference along with the text does not avoid this problem. I removed the writer/director information because the previously provided source (from Zap2It) did not indicate who the writer/director for that episode was as far as I can see. As you can see here, it is up to the editor who adds information about upcoming events (in this case episodes) to provide a reliable third party source that verifies the information, which you did not do. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That may be right, but 80% of the episodes summaries on wikiepedia are copy and pasted from other sites that summarise an episode. B.Davis2003 (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If that's true then they need to be removed and re-written as well. The argument "I saw it on another Wikipedia article, so it must be okay" doesn't fly. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's on many articles. B.Davis2003 (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

talk-page stalker here! Schrutedlt08 is correct, "it's on many articles" just means those articles you've seen are wrong. Those summaries are allowed provided they're completely re-written in your own words. Jayy008 (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for episode-guides

Hey Just wanted to ask, what sources to you call reliable then, since you told me IMDB and tv.com are not? thx for answer DamienDarko 22:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RELY should give you some guidlines. But The Futon Critic, Zap2It and MSN TV are all reliable sources, because they receive their information directly from the networks. Also any sites that are owned and operated by the networks themselves, such as ABC Media Net or CBS Press Express are suitable. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Pilot (Boardwalk Empire)/GA1

The GAN of Pilot (Boardwalk Empire) is on hold to 11 Jan to allow time to work on the lead. Assistance would be welcome. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This user helped promote Pilot (Boardwalk Empire) to good article status.

The work has been done, and the article has been listed. Well done for creating and developing a Good Article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited One Tree Hill (season 9), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Davola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SchrutedIt08. You have new messages at Talk:Hawaii Five-0 (season 1).
Message added 16:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"&"/And

You might want to take a peek at my conversation about the whole "&"/and situation here & here. We generally do not care how writers are written in the episode. Sure there's the difference of "And"/"&" but on Wikipedia we just care that there was a writer, or two, or three (regardless of how the writers are written on screen). As AussieLedgend explained, listing with "name one & name two and name three" is in fact poor English. You list them as in "name one, name two & name three." Lots of other pages use this. Also you'll notice the one between Sunshineisles2 and me. Yes "&" is different than "and" but we do not care how the writers collaborated but the fact that 3 writers worked on the script. Listing them as "Steven Lilien, Bryan Wynbrandt & Elizabeth Sarnoff" is correct, I'm not lying. - Alec2011 (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of Southland episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nelson McCormick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Game-of-thrones-season-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Game-of-thrones-season-2.jpg. 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.Template:Z134 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Walking Dead

As I mentioned on your talk page already....

You might want to take a peek at my conversation about the whole "&"/and situation here & here. We generally do not care how writers are written in the episode. Sure there's the difference of "And"/"&" but on Wikipedia we just care that there was a writer, or two, or three (regardless of how the writers are written on screen). As AussieLedgend explained, listing with "name one & name two and name three" is in fact poor English. You list them as in "name one, name two & name three." Lots of other pages use this. Also you'll notice the one between Sunshineisles2 and me. Yes "&" is different than "and" but we do not care how the writers collaborated but the fact that 3 writers worked on the script. Listing them as "Charles H. Eglee, Jack LoGiudice and Frank Darabont" is also correct. Where is the rule that I can't use this form? - Alec2011 (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response. Real life got in the way yesterday. I think a better place for this discussion is here so that other editors, such as Drovethrughosts, can participate as well. But since you've already started a discussion here, I may as well respond by saying that there's no rule that states you absolutely have to use the "name one & name two and name three" format, but is there a specific rule that says you can't either? Basically my argument is that there isn't actually a downside for using this format and the upside is that it simply reflects the way the writers are credited. I would argue that the manner and style in which they are credited (using this format, or the story/teleplay format as another example) are equally as important as who is credited for the work. In the television world there is a significant difference between the two formats. If they find it sufficiently notable to credit them in different ways, I fail to see why it should be any less notable for us. For a more practical reason, I know for a fact that some people use the information they see on the Wikipedia episode list pages to update similar information on other sites, such as IMDb or TV.com. While it may not seem like that big of a deal, and granted it really isn't, if an editor were to see the "name one, name two & name three" format, rather than the "name one & name two and name three" format, they would then take that information and add it to another site. Before you know it, there are a dozen television and movie sites that have incorrect or incomplete writer information, all because of this argument. I've seen all the reasoning against this format and I'm still unconvinced that there's anything wrong with it. The WGA obviously doesn't. I fail to see why we should think we know better. It's notable enough for the actual episodes, it should be notable for us. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I talked with another editor about it. There isn't a rule for either way, I feel it's just basically what the editor feels at the time. If there's one way on the page already, keep it consistent so there's not. For me, I don't see why anyone cares if the writers work together doesn't an encyclopedia have to have correct grammar/English? I can see both ways as well and both ways is correct. I do use the Teleplay/Story format I don't have anything against that, but the way writers are written. I guess it's more I use correct grammar and seeing name 1 & name 2 & name 3 and name 4 is hard to look at without correction. It's just too many and's/ampersands. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Game of Thrones

My mistake, I hadn't realized the source changed since the last time I looked at it even though you updated the accessdate.
Thanks, Amalthea 10:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. Futon is usually pretty fast and updating HBO information. It usually goes up at the same time that HBO updates their schedule. So every week on this day Futon should have a new title. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

House (season 8)

There is a discussion on the talk page. Please defend you revert and answer the questions that I have posed there. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already done so. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you haven't answered a critical question that I posed there. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Television episode and season articles badly needed

Due to your userboxes, I feel I should inform you of a drive at Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Episodes to create articles for some of the most important episodes and seasons in television history. Please try to help out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out and lend a hand if I can. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to put User:SchrutedIt08/Sopranos S6 in the main space. You can just put {{underconstruction}} on top if you are still working on it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I was planning on moving it when I had added some production details and find a DVD image, but I guess I can movie it now if you think it's warranted. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It may be confusing to people looking at the list of articles already taken over if it is going to stay in user space a long time. However, articles are not suppose to have {{underconstruction}} on them for a long time without being edited. If you will be working on this at least weekly move it to article space. I also favor reasonable articles being in main space, but that is just a personal preference. It is really your choice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I went ahead and moved the page into it's rightful space and added the under construction tag. I'll be adding as much info as I can over the next few days and hopefully this will encourage other editors to add as well. Problem is finding sources to back up information that's five or six years old, but I'll keep trying. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

MAY I RECOMMEND ADDING CENTRAL CHARACTERS OF ONCE UPON A TIME EPISODES ON THE EPISODES PAGE, LIKE THE LOST PAGES HAVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.189.97 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.210 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)