User talk:Drovethrughosts/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 8


Cool name man. Big fan of the band — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorontonianOnlines (talkcontribs) 22:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks man. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Twin Peaks

I've created an RFC about creating two season pages of two-season television series. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi, i see you're a contributor and i was wondering why there's no information about the adults 18-49 demographics (these ratings are as important as total viewers). The show just made history and earned a series high 6.1 adults 18-49 rating (the same or better than shows like The Big Bang Theory or American Idol). So i think we should do something like this (except the DVR stuff). Think about it! ;) Good night. --Luisrafael7 (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


...for rounding out The Killing's recent cast references. I had thought to do that, but a health issue kicked my butt this past weekend. — Wyliepedia 04:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, just thought it was a good idea to have sources for all new cast additions. The new season is shaping up to be pretty good, Peter Sarsgaard is quite a good get, pretty excited. Anyway, hope you feel better (if you're not already). Later. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing posts and then re-posting as your own

For instance, you took away a column with average viewer information and then re-added as your own with minor footnote changes on the Justified page. If you want to be a gatekeeper of a page, is it possible to make your efforts more collaborative? Also, it is not opinion when a person puts in facts that are not superfulous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gounc123 (talkcontribs) 18:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

When I re-added the average viewership info, I was being collaborative. After undoing it originally, I thought for a sec, and went and looked for reliable sources that include the average viewership for each season, and I re-added it to the page. Sources that correctly back up what is on the page is not a "minor footnote". What you originally had wasn't really all that acceptable, by just placing a random reference saying it's the source for all that info. Also, it would have been nice if you just didn't delete the comments that were on your talk page, so maybe a dialog could happen. I removed the last portion of the summary again, because it still comes off as completely trivial; we don't need a recap of deaths that happened in the episode, or a "death count". If it's important to the plot, please instead incorporate that info into the summary and not a tag to the summary. Arlo's death is mentioned three times in the summary, you don't think that's superfluous or unnecessary? Anyway, whatever. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Roverzero1983 here. i noticed that you keep deleting my note on the Bones episode: "The gamer in the grease" about Joel David Moore and Avatar and I wanted to let you know that the NOTE I posted was true and He told me himself VIA Facebook and Twitter so please STOP DELETING MY CHANGES. What I posted is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roverzero1983 (talkcontribs) 00:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Walking Dead

Not sure if you can help with reverting the "Deaths" section additions made by one anonymous editor to several articles. I don't want to be accused of 3RR. No worries if not able to help at this time, I will just wait a little while. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. I think only three articles needing reverts remain: "Nebraska", "Pretty Much Dead Already" and "Triggerfinger". --Another Believer (Talk) 16:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Before you know it, it'll be back. Ah, the joy of dealing with annoying anonymous editors. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you know why someone is going through the re-arranging the names of guests in infoboxes? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It's seems they're re-arranging them in the order the actors are billed in the credits, which is definitely no problem. For example, here, he moved Scott Wilson down because he's billed last among the on-screen credited guest cast but lists him before Jane McNeill, etc. as those actors are credited in the end credits. That's my assumption, he's moving them around to reflect the episode order billing. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha. The ordering just seemed arbitrary to me... I was more curious than alarmed. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Walking Dead Season 4

No offense, but I don't see how this article isn't warranted, or what here is supposed to be speculation. If I recall correctly, the main article for Season 3 came out around a day or two after the second season finale aired. The cast lists too are just listing off the main and recurring characters who survived this season. I do not see what is speculative about it. - molcoo (talk)

Everything in that article is currently covered by subsection within the main article. Nothing is being expanded upon; it's not necessary at this moment. While everything else is pure speculation from a viewer. We can't just say "they're expected to return because they didn't die". Most of it's probably correct, but it's still unverified speculation. The Talking Dead section is also complete speculation, for all we know, they could cancel it. Until more verifiable and in-depth information becomes available, such as casting, episode, and production information, a standalone article isn't unnecessary at the very moment. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Just wondering why you removed the reference I added to the Walking Dead MOOC by University of Irvine. It's cool and groundbreaking. 50,000 people are taking an online class which covers societal issues explored in The Walking Dead. That seems pretty cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solap (talkcontribs) 12:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Raw URL is not suited to be used as a reference.

Dear Drove,

I appreciate your contribution on Game of Thrones, Season 3, Episode 3 article, the Walk of Punishment. However, I would like to inform you of a small mistake. I notice that you used bare URL as a reference, but this is not very suitable. Kindly consult Wikipedia:Citation templates and see the table, in the Website section. For example, when cite a website, you can use <ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title | work = | publisher = | date = | url = | format = | doi = | accessdate = | archiveurl = | archivedate = }}</ref> and fill in the missing information.

Also, please note that webpages like TV schedule, movie schedule, movie release date, product description page, etc, are only there only as long as they suit the distributors' purpose. Such URLs are prone to WP:link rot, meaning that they will stop working in a few months from now. Consider using WebArchive or other permalinks providers to create a permanent URL for the page and add the URL into the template. This will help to keep your reference permanent. Hope this doesn't discourage you from contributing in the future. Thank you. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but did you confuse me with another editor? If you knew me as an editor previously, you'd know I always use full references and am usually the first one to fill out a ref that was previously a bare url. What exact edit are you referring to? If you're referring to this edit, I removed a bare url as it's unnecessary given the episode has aired. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Whoops. That's embarrassing. My mistake. I was about to post this to that person's page, then I clicked your name, and then I left the keyboard for a time. When I came back, well, you know the rest... LOL. >_<; Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Ha, that's fine. Good day. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Angel (TV series)#Requested move

As you reverted what I assumed to be a non-controversial move, due to additional disambiguation being required, maybe you'd like to comment. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


The film was not scrapped last year. Last year, the word was that it was still on. Enigmamsg 04:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

List of The Office (U.S TV Series) episodes-Series Overview Section

Hi this is "Wiki2093" I edited List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes to include the season by season 18-49 demo rankings. I noticed you keep changing it back, but 18-49 is the more important stat so that's why I ask you leave my edit, thanks!Wiki2092 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're adding it without any source, and you removed a reference that I added that supports the season 9 ratings information. More importantly, the 18-49 info is only important for ad buyers, not for a regular reader. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant to add sources yesterday but it was getting late and I was tired, I'll do that now, i didn't realize I removed 1 of your references, sorry about that!Wiki2092 (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again I added my references to the table I made and even corrected your mistake in the season 9 column. All ratings info I added leads back to the same source. Also I'm pretty sure Wikipedia places a notice at the top of an article when there is too much information in it I don't believe that was the case with this one. Sorry if I'm annoying you but I'm also a HUGE tv buff a stickler for complete ratings info. That is why I added a column to the table in the first place. I know 18-49 relates mainly to ad-buyers but it also determines which shows get canceled/renewed every year! # of total viewers doesn't mean squat! Take this (Harry’s Law) for instance it got a ton of total viewers per episode (like 8-12m I think) but > a 1.5 in 18-49, so NBC canceled it! I not going to do this for every show I edit just ones that are or were at one time hits, once again really sorry if I'm annoying you, thanks!Wiki2092 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


It's shown very briefly at the 0:14 mark (you have to pause the video). Screenshot here. --Dorsal Axe 13:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, I figured that's where it was, but I couldn't for the life of me pause it at the right time and see it clearly. I'll readd the content. Sorry for that. The video's been made private now, will have to find a new source if we want to readd it.Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Hm, that's strange. I'll have a look and see if the video or information has been posted anywhere else. --Dorsal Axe 15:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully the title will change. "Felina" is kind of lame. "Crystal Clear" actually would be really cool, because of the whole meth thing. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Walking Dead Season 4 update

Hi Drovethrughosts. There has been more information coming out relating to Season 4 of TWD, such as set locations, episode titles (and the writers/directors attached to each one), confirmation of upgraded recurring cast members, guest stars, and unknown-credited new characters, etc. Do you think now is a suitable time to create an article for Season 4? I thought I'd run it past you first just so if I make the article now it doesn't get reverted. If you could get back to me as soon as possible, I'd very much appreciate it! --Molcoo (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's about the right time, as there's definitely plenty of information available now. Feel free to undo the redirect, and get the article going. I'll definitely be there to help and expand it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Zou Bisou Bisou image

You are extremely active at Mad Men, List of Mad Men episodes, Mad Men (season 5) and related topics. I am having some trouble at "Zou Bisou Bisou" with File:Jessica Paré in a miniskirt performing Zou Bisou Bisou.jpg. There is discussion at Talk:Zou_Bisou_Bisou#Non-free_image regarding its removal. I would appreciate it if you would comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Frank Underwood (House of Cards)

Given your interest in Chapter 1 (House of Cards), I thought you might want to have a look at Frank Underwood (House of Cards) before I put them both up at WP:DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

and Claire Underwood.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

X-Files episode question

I though that episode serials (stories with more than one episode) are supposed to be in italics according to MoS? I don't mean to question you, I just thought I'd check since you are very familiar with MoS, and I don't want to revert that which is right.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I was actually going to leave a message on your talk page before making the edits. "Serials" is more referring to the style of British TV. A "serial" (not to be confused with serial drama, more used term for a type of American TV) is similar to that of a miniseries, which is italicized. "Redux" is simply a two-part episode, not a "serial", I don't I've ever heard someone refer to these types of episodes as "serials". A good example would be the X-Files mythology collections which contain multiple episodes that then make a new product and could be referred to as a "serial", thus, are italicized in their articles. "Redux I" and "Redux II" are singular episodes (they don't combine to literally make a new piece of work), they're simply contained within a single article because they share the same title. Anyway, it's just I've never seen this done, and it's just I don't think it's correct when referring to two-part episodes of American TV. It's an interesting conversation though. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I just wanted to check. I saw that The End of Time was italicized, so I did it to those episodes, but it did feel... off. I'm glad I got that cleared up, and thanks for the help!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Breaking Bad

All my changes are correct. I have checked these tracks and verified them. Why are you changing all of my work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowephato (talkcontribs) 21:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

All the changes you've made do not coincide with the reference being used to cite the track listing. For season 1, for example, you added a song by someone named "Eric Chun", you changed SDK to FDK, and made other changes that do not match with the link. You saying they're "correct" doesn't make it automatically correct, Wikipedia is based on verification, and you haven't provided any for the changes made. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Much of the information edited by Clayton Newman on AMC's website is incorrect. I have personally been working on music compilations for each season of Breaking Bad ever since the first season. I have tracked down perhaps 99 percent of the music used, some of which is not even listed on AMC's site. This music includes commercial tracks, media music publisher site tracks, and, to a lesser extent, Dave Porter's own music from the official soundtrack. I have "VERIFIED" these tracks by painstakingly checking them against their filmed counterparts by reviewing each episode. The artist names and composers are correct. So you can imagine my dismay upon seeing you delete all of my work. Must I "prove" to you my sources? I don't understand. If official sources are incorrect, then how are we to correct things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowephato (talkcontribs) 22:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, I've gone and simply removed the track listing per MOS:TV, which states under "Things to avoid" in TV-related articles is to not simply list music: "Wikipedia is not a directory. In other words, provide context as to why these songs were used for the show." Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start with "Oh Beautiful," which is not in the Wiki database, but my correction, "America the Beautiful," is. The reference from Discogs for The Charlie Steinmann Orchestra and Choir's song (written by Paul Rothmann [two 'n's']), "It is Such a Good Night," is accurate. You can even look at the "picture" of the back cover. All that I can say is I tried to make the world better, but a brick wall prevented me from doing so. All of the information that I edited is correct and your information is not. The world is not a better place for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowephato (talkcontribs) 22:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not "my" information. I was simply maintaining the information that came from the source. Regardless, it's gone now. Maybe you should try and contact the editors at the AMC website and notify them of their errors. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Buffy the vampire slayer genres

Hi, I'm don't understand why you reverted the genres back to what they were before when I have clear proof of what the genres the show has been labelled as, by Joss Whedon himself. I took the genres from the Buffy book, "Joss Whedon: The Genius behind Buffy", where Joss clearly states that the genres I put are the genres of the show. I was just about to add proper reference as well (as I don't know how to properly do them on Wikipedia). If you could change it back and reference it for me, it would be good, because these are the proper genres (and they are listed in that order quite a few times in that book as well). Here is the proof, where the show is clearly labelled as the four I put up: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafire94 (talkcontribs) 13:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So, are you saying Buffy isn't a fantasy or supernatural show? That's quite ridiculous. It features magic, demons, vampires, witches, mystical forces, etc. That's the definition of fantasy and supernatural. To eliminate those genres is very misleading and incorrect. Just those four genres doesn't correctly categorize the show. Just because it's not explicitly mentioned in that one book doesn't make it somehow incorrect. The genres as they stand right now are correct. Several editors have agreed upon the set of genres awhile back. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I can understand it being supernatural and all, but these are the genres that Joss Whedon created for the show. At least put the Horror and Action genres higher on the list, because it makes it look like the show is less about them and more about the fantasy elements, which it isn't because once again, Joss has said the show is a action horror first and foremost (see here: Don't remove the fantasy and supernatural drama bit then, but at least move the other two genres higher, as they are what the shows been classed as first by Joss himself (because no one knows the show better than him!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafire94 (talkcontribs) 16:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Chapter 1 (House of Cards)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Date Formats

Good Evening Drovethrughhosts

FYI - While I won't make any changes to your date formats on the Orphan Black citation, I have noticed over the years that eventually a bot comes through and changes them all to dd mmm yyyy. That's why I started using that it


Ecragg (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen a bot change dates. An as editor, you can use a script that converts date formats automatically though. I changed it for consistency as all other dates are formatted that way. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


ok they're main cast, but every other character doesn't have these major spoilers, and i dont care for what the other user wrote before. just at least remove the spoilers, it's all i'm asking !!

thanks :) --hosam007 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Blood Money

Saw you are in a dispute on Blood Money. He disregarded my addition because he is an edit war with you. On the talk page he called you a giant dick. Not even a month ago he referred to one editor as a terrorist and called another a little bitch. He was warned that this behavior could get him blocked. Yet her persists. You may want to report this behavior as it is unacceptable.

The Office (season 8) FL

Hey, just a heads up, The Office season 8 page just got promoted to Featured List. Since you were named as a co-nominator, you can display that you promoted this particular FL.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The Rising Tide (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

I suspect such an article would be considered notable given the controversy over the name “Rising Tide.”

But, for now, I’ll leave it as is.

allixpeeke (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Six Feet Under (seasons 1-3)

I have unredirected Six Feet Under (season 1), Six Feet Under (season 2) and Six Feet Under (season 3). These seasons support templates for the 2nd and 3rd most important awards a season can win: Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series and Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Drama.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't exist solely so it can support a link in a template. That's ridiculous. Those articles have nothing that doesn't already exist in the list of episodes page. The links in the template still work, they just link to the season section in list of episodes page. What's the difference? Those articles were created over 5 months ago, and haven't been touched since then. It's just duplicated content and nothing is expanded upon, nor does the article contain any references. The seasons may be notable, but the articles don't support it, because there's no content beyond a copied-and-pasted episode list. How can you justify their existence? Whatever, not going to argue beyond that. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Drovethrughosts. It is absurd to keep the articles active solely for that purpose. The original creator of the articles was asked if they were going to beef up the articles by adding additional information other than the awards, they didn't. The fact that the seasons did win those awards is a good reason to have the articles, but those wins alone do not justify the creation of an article that has literally no other information that cannot be found in the main LoE page. Keeping them in this condition is ridiculous. If you want the articles active, find the extra stuff that will justify them. Otherwise, leave them as re-directs. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree here too. As I've pointed out elsewhere, Season articles need to be transcluded onto the main episode list, which needs a valid {{main}} link back to the season article. If this isn't the case, all that happens is the season article and main list end up out of sync and then some other editor has to come along and sort out the mess, which usually ends up producing a sub-standard article. For the benefit of both Drovethrughosts and SchrutedIt08, I've only been made aware of this now because it looks like we're going to be going through the same thing with The Beverly Hillbillies (season 1) and The Beverly Hillbillies (season 2), resulting from another of StewieBaby's unnecessary splits. --AussieLegend () 11:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Walking Dead (TV series)

By reverting my edit to The Walking Dead (TV series), it appears you are bound and determined to create maximum confusion and make your little contribution to the coming Year 2100 problem. As justification, you cite a Wikipedia policy that was created by the blind leading the blind. I can only shake my head. — QuicksilverT @ 13:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Because yes, the second season of The Walking Dead is going to air until the year 2112... I hope your comment is sarcasm or something. The policy makes sense and nothing is creating confusion. It's when dating ranges beyond a century, then you use the full year. Pretty simple, no? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not being sarcastic. I am dead serious. Nobody thought that more than two digits would be needed to encode years when accounting software was written in COBOL and industrial control systems were written in FORTRAN in the 1950s and 1960s. The year 2000 seemed like it was a long, long way off, but before people knew it, the date was upon them and there was a mad scramble and panic in the last five years of the 20th century to update software. By that time most of the programmers who had worked on those systems had retired, and of the ones still alive, quite a few were brought out of retirement to write patches. In some cases the source code was no longer available, and making patches was very difficult, or impossible. Wikipedia articles will outlive you and me. By omitting the centuries digits of dates, you are creating confusion for future generations of readers who are not yet born. Why do you insist on being so short-sighted? — QuicksilverT @ 05:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Um...please don't make it seem like I'm breaking Wikipedia rules, or I'm the only one who does this. It's a Wikipedia standard, WP:YEAR. There's nothing wrong with 2011–12, that means 2011 to 2012. This isn't computer programming. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

MoS question

Should info pertaining to foreign airings of TV series be in the main article? Someone added a big paragraph section to The X-Files about its success in Japan called, aptly "Japan". Should this stay, or do you think it should be removed/retitled?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to international broadcast sections for TV shows, I'm against just the blanket listings, but that addition is properly done. It's not just listing what channel it aired on, it's listing why the broadcast was notable (ratings, etc.), with good references. Per the MOS, you can remove if it's just a channel listing. You've already retitled it, which is good. If any other countries are added, it should be along the same lines at that one, containing notable information with good references. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's what I was thinking, but I just thought I'd check.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Redundant season articles

TonyTheTiger has started a thread at WT:TV regarding the restoration of season articles. I have specifically mentioned Six Feet Under (season 1), Six Feet Under (season 2) and Six Feet Under (season 3), with which you've had some direct involvement. Accordingly, your comments at this discussion would be appreciated. --AussieLegend () 16:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Curb your enthusiasm


I see you have deleted the contribution I made to the "Curb your Enthusiasm" entry (recurrent gags / characters throwing "fuck you, Larry!" at Larry's face all the time). May I know why ? Was it that my english wasn't great, in which case you're welcome to improve it. But why delete the reference completely ? This recurring line is completely part of the series DNA, and it had me laugh each time !! It's both a gag and a recurring one, for sure, so I can't see how this wouldn't fit in the "recurrent gags" section.

Thanks in advance for your explanations.

Horse and Wagon listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Horse and Wagon. Since you had some involvement with the Horse and Wagon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Another Believer (Talk) 15:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Ceation

Stop vandalising the articles i created. They are fit for purpose and contain all information that is possible. I have reported you for this.Makro (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what vandalism is. If anything, I properly formatted the article, where all you did was copy and paste all the content from another website. No, the article does not contain "all information that is possible"—where's the character summary for season 1, 2, 3, 4? How was the actor cast? Where's information about the design of the mask for the character? Is Richard Harrow based any specific person in history? What's been the critical reception to the character and actor? How about comments from Jack Huston about the development and writing of the character? That's how you write an article about a fictional character on Wikipedia. You don't just copy and paste in-universe content from another website and call it a day. If you no desire to actually properly expand the article with real-world information, it doesn't deserve an article. Again, I highly suggest you read WP:ALLPLOT and WP:FICTION and stop acting ignorant to any rules or guidelines. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A word of caution about 3RR

Hey just a friendly caution to please be careful to avoid violating the 3RR as you did earlier today. I'm sure you are familiar the rules since you've been here a while, but what you were reverting did not fall under any of the exceptions to the rule. I've warned the other user that was involved in this as well and I hope you can talk it out peacefully in the future. Thingg 01:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GA Thanks

Symbol support vote.svg This user has contributed to Chapter 1 (House of Cards) good articles on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your editorial contributions to Chapter 1 (House of Cards), which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Walter White (Breaking Bad)#Real life meth dealer named Walter White

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Walter White (Breaking Bad)#Real life meth dealer named Walter White. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)