User talk:Alex 21/Archive 2

Reference Errors on 24 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Constantine (TV series) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Toby Whithouse Situation

I would appreciate it if you deigned to look at what I'd actually added instead of assuming that you're right. I've added a new source which explicity states "The episodes being filmed first are a two-parter written by Being Human's Toby Whithouse who has previously written Doctor Who episodes School Reunion, Vampires of Venice, The God Complex and A Town Called Mercy. It is said to be episodes 3 and 4 of series 9". This is the required source connecting the previously confirmed "episodes three and four in filming block 1" with the separately confirmed "Toby Whithouse has written the episodes being filmed". We now have a source connecting these two, as such WP:SYNTH does not apply, and the information is valid. FaithHealer1 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - here are a couple ideas to consider

Thanks for working with my note about "Appreciation Index" on the season table. I'm conflicted about whether it is better or not. For me, although the link is blue and underlined, it is still on the iffy side to know that there is a link to click on. I guess I keep coming back to the idea that so many readers out side the UK will wonder what that column is for. OTOH I think you did a good job of finding a place for it and it is a solution to how clunky my note looked. It will probably work just fine. One other thing to consider, since the table is so long and some readers will use the table of contents to click lower down and not even see the link for the first season I wonder if it the link should be added a couple more times. Not every season mind you as that would be an overlink. Maybe add each time that it is a season/series that introduces a new Doctor. Well there isn't any need to rush. Think about it for a couple days and if these still seem like bad ideas then don't worry about it. Enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 05:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ascension

"None have replied to your discussion, that is not concensus, that's just you. Wait for validated and more experienced editors' opinions) (undo)"

Basically, you are saying that IP editors are not allowed to edit articles at all. I said there was consensus because I was agreeing with TWO earlier comments that disagreed with "Alternate present" label. No one had argued for that in the last 5 weeks. If you don't like "secret history", how about stating why (on the article talk page) rather than just implying IP editors are clueless idiots or vandals. 202.81.249.151 (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all. Though, by your remarks, perhaps you should learn how to edit. Hundreds of editors have edited the article, and had no problem with it. One or two editor(s) comes along with a problem with it. Hence, consensus would be required to change what both editors have agreed on and what is has been marketed as. Simply, really. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

So I need to get every editor who has ever edited the article to agree with any change I want to make or you will revert it? Okay. I had assumed that anyone who actually cared about it would have it on their watch list and have responded sometime in the last 5 weeks to the original discussion, which so far is unanimous in rejecting the label "alternate present". So, how many months do I need to wait? If you actually have an opinion on the merits of the edit, other than who made it, why not discuss it at the article? I have no idea what you mean by "what is has been marketed as". When was it ever marketed as "alternate present"? There is no citation for that label. It's just what one editor sometime ago wrote. Let him defend it if he cares. 202.81.249.151 (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You are aware the D in WP:BRD actually requires "discussion" if you disagree? But after 2 days you have yet to express any opinion on the article talk page. So, I reiterate that there was (and still is) a consensus at Talk:Ascension_(TV_series)#.22Alternate_Present.22.3F that "Alternate present" is not appropriate. While I'm sure that "secret history" is actually the better term, I'll just remove the less appropriate one and ask you to discuss on the talk page rather than blindly revert if you have a problem with that. 202.81.248.195 (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Once Upon a time

I can't undo this guy's edit, but can you see if its valid for reversion? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: It was, and I did. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Katana

Hey, I thought you may like to voice your opinon on a matter that is currently being debated over at the DC comic book character Katana's Talk page. It concerns Arrow. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Revolution (TV series)

Hey there, how you doing? I recently noticed you frequently make contributions to the Revolution page. I don't know if you are aware, but the show released a couple of animated webseries throughout its airing. However, it is not even cited in the show's article nor on its episode list. I'm not really having much free time lately so I was hoping you could look into that. Thank you —- Artmanha (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The Writing on the Wall

I fixed the link to The Writing on the Wall. It seems that the capitalization was confusing Wikipedia and it probably should redirect to the disambiguation. I was quite surprised to see it redirect to the TV episode given the prominence of other similar works. Should be all set now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Gallipoli (TV series)

Hi Alex,

I added in the names for the next 5 episodes as released on Stan which you reverted as there were no sources cited - fair call.

The only source I can find is on Stan itself - [1] however this does not appear in the public domain as a login/subscription is required to view the list of episodes. Would this source be sufficient or would a source in the public domain be required? I'm not fully up to speed on citing sources! Any way around this or should I just wait until a more public source becomes available? Troy Reynolds (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Troy Reynolds: Thank you taking this to a discussion. The source would been to be in the public domain, so that it can be verified. Anything that cannot be checked by everyone would be unverifiable. If there's an episode listing on Stan, there may be such a listing publicly-available as well, it may simply take a bit of searching, which I'll be looking for in my free time. Do re-instate the episode titles if you find a public source. Thanks! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, agreed, I've just been reading up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and it would appear that "made available to the public in some form" makes it pretty clear. I will do some searching also, Cheers! Troy Reynolds (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed you have reverted some edits from others on this article with the reason "Can't summarize something that hasn't aired yet." Just wanted to let you know that all 7 episodes have in fact "aired" on the subscription service Stan. Troy Reynolds (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Troy Reynolds: They don't air on a subscription service. They're available for viewers to watch on their own time. And again, the issue with public access. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

References

List of Arrow Episodes, "Sacrifice" entry: all changes problematic, or just the ones in the edit summary?

AlexTheWhovian, I made two basic edits in the "Sacrifice" entry. The first was to revise "hung from chains, but he manages to escape and return home" to "hanging from chains, but he escapes and returns home", which seemed to me to be improved wording. I'd like to restore that, but don't want either or both of us to get into 3RR territory.

The second, of course, was removing the "shortly before he dies", which I believe is unnecessary. Sara's case in the premiere episode is different: everyone says she died in that episode, so it was part of the story. In this case, the text already describes Malcolm as mortally wounded: that means dying. No more is needed. The episode this is akin to is "The Climb", and my proposed changes left the descriptions roughly equivalent. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I have no issues with the edits abut the chains, reinstate that to your liking. As for the second, I believe Sara's and Merlyn's case are similar, in the fact that (as you said) everyone says that Sara died in that episode, and in Season 2, everyone says that Merlyn died in that episode. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, I appreciate you letting me know about the other edits. In the future, if you have problems with part of an edit but not the rest, please undo only the parts that you find problematic and leave the rest intact. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Lindsey Stirling (Compilations)

Hi, I saw you reverted the edit which removed the Compilations section in the Lindsey Stirling page. I think that the Compilations section should not be a part of the page, as those compilations were not released by Lindseystomp Records as it suggests. Because they were not released by Lindsey, her management has removed them from any legitimate music service. If you need confirmation you can email Lindsey's assistant at support@lindseystirling.com RandomCactus (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Flash International Ratings

Please explain why you reverted by edit. I don't know what you mean by the edit summary you gave me. I was only adding ratings for English countries. I wasn't going to add ratings tables for every country or international ratings for every episode. Because we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dcbanners (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The note states "Do not add international ratings for every episode or ratings tables for every country". Straight after, you then proceed to add international ratings for every country. See where I'm getting at yet? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant to only add Australia, UK, and Canada. In other words, the countries listed in the "Broadcast" section. I apologize for the confusion. Dcbanners (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Merlyn/The Dark Archer

Hey, I thought you may like to voice your opinon on a matter that is currently being debated over at the DC comic book character Merlyn's Talk page. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit Reversion on The 100

So I put the tag Category:American LGBT-related television programs on The 100 (TV series) in light of confirmation from the writers that the main character, Clarke, is bisexual. You reverted the edit. Is there a reason why?

Please sign your posts so that I know who I'm talking to. My reasons are present in the summaries of the reverting edits. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing the comment and not seeing your reason for the edit. So the page for Category:American LGBT-related television programs states "This category includes television series, made-for-television films, news, entertainment, specials and other programming originating in the United States, which deal with or feature significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device." How does the protagonist being bisexual not fit under that. mpen320 (talk) 08:12, 28 Feb 2015

Because the issue is neither significant, given that it was only introduced in the most recent episode and hasn't had time to establish itself, nor is the relationship used as an important plot device. That covers both areas of the category's requirements. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, but I won't re-add the tag or push the issue since TV shows aren't really my Wikipedia interest. mpen320 (talk) 18:07, 28 Feb 2015

What is your problem.

Everyone on the talk page agrees Under the Dome episode summaries should not be on that paged they should be moved. Don't threaten me, I don't care about a stupid rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyedithere (talk • contribs) 04:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Whyedithere: No, they don't. If a season article does not exist, then they belong on the "List of ... episodes" page, and even longer plot summaries on the episode articles. This also doesn't explain why you're removing the summaries of episodes that don't have individual articles. Then enjoy getting banned from blocking! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Really? Are you trying to pick a fight with me? First off, read WP:ROWN. Have you seen my user page? I shouldn't have to tell you this but, Wikipedia is "a collaborative effort". You have to let others edit (especially if they are much more experienced). Before I decide to revert a registered editor's edit, I check their edit count. If they have about the same experience, or especially if they have considerably more, I won't revert unless it's flagrantly incorrect (and that's quite rare). And if the person has a lot more experience than I do, then it's most likely that they know more than I do. Also, you should give a valid reason for removing sourced content or maintenance templates. These edits of yours are considered disruptive.

Now, about the particular edits:

"a row can be added when there's valid information (i.e. dates and times". That makes no sense. The purpose of a Ratings table is to show the ratings. It makes no difference what information there is. The premiere date is already found elsewhere, so it's unnecessary to add it there right now. And as for the times, there are no sources for them, and you removed the templates (a big no no) without explanation.

"Not an action "film"." Really? You revert a referenced add and that's the reason you give?? There is no separate article for "Action TV show". See List_of_genres#Film_and_television_genres; they're all used for both TV and film. That's how it's done. And even if the wikilink was wrong, that's no reason to remove sourced content. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Musdan77: Welcome to Wikipedia! Firstly, Wikipdia is edited by all sorts of editors equally - just because you've been here for longer, doesn't give you more "rights". I quote you: Wikipedia is "a collaborative effort". Next. Technically the ratings table need not exist, given that it's simply duplicate information of the tables in List of Under the Dome episodes. I quote you again: "[...] is already found elsewhere, so it's unnecessary to add it [...]". The removal of the templates was accidental. No need to assume that everyone who reverts you is "trying to pick a fight" with you. Next. Looks like you were reverted on the Scorpion page by another user. Looks like I'm not the only one who disagrees with the addition of a false, poorly-sourced link. I don't see any "warnings" on their page. Do enjoy you stay here! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

1) I didn't say anything about "rights" (quotes?) or about "being here longer" for that matter, but the higher the edit count, the more experience. More experience equals more knowledge. That doesn't mean that I (or other veteran editors) don't make mistakes. But, you have to figure that someone with 5 times the edit count would know a little more than you about editing (and deleting warnings doesn't really do any good). 2) Ratings table are not "simply duplicate information of the tables in List of Under the Dome episodes", and I think you're missing my point. 3) Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say, "that everyone who reverts [me] is "trying to pick a fight" with" me. It was you who reverted my edits 3 times in a row, with very lame and erroneous edit summaries (did you read WP:ROWN?). 4) The other editor who reverted was because of the source I gave. That's not the reason you gave. Btw, Under the Dome has 4 genres listed and no sources. At least I gave one. I will find a better one. Please try to learn more about when to revert and when not to. It seems that you've had a lot of conflicts with other editors in the short time that you've been editing. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Musdan77: a) Incorrect. A user could go around, fixing minor punctuation on tens of thousands of pages. They have no idea what the rules are, they're just done a lot of minor edits. From there, I have no idea what your experience on Wikipedia has contributed, or what you know about Wikipedia. (And if you bothered to read the summaries, you'd know why I cleared your apparently "warnings"). b) I believe they are, and incorrect, I am not. c) You pretty much did, buddy. You reverted my reverts with edit summaries that were just as poor. d) Same thing. Besides, how can a TV show be an action film? A more correct category would be Action (fiction). And we're not talking about Under the Dome when it comes to genres, we're talking Scorpion. Now you're failing at attempting to bend the subject around to fit your own needs. Please try to learn more about when to revert and when not to. Enjoy Wikipedia, it seems you've attempted to contribute a lot in your short time here. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia.

1) Don't you know what btw means? It means "by the way" -- which means it's another subject (but usually somewhat related). 2) "how can a TV show be an action film?" How is it any different (besides the fact that it's on TV)? That link has been used on many other TV articles. But, if that was your only dispute of the edit, then you could (or should) have just changed that link. We don't just completely revert a good-faith edit by a registered editor (especially with a source) because we disagree with one part of it. That kind of reverting is not helpful (constructive), but is disruptive. Editors are supposed to work together, not against each other. The rest of what you wrote is pretty much nonsense. I'm trying not to make disparaging remarks, because that's not helpful either. We all should be willing to learn from more experienced editors. I actually pretty much agree with that userbox. Notice the word "necessarily" -- meaning there are always exceptions -- but as a general rule of thumb... as I said, the more edits, the more the experience, the more experience, the more the knowledge a person has (and that goes for anything in life). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Flash (2014 TV series)

"Lead" is not the past tense of "lead." Please see Strunk and White's The Elements of Style and http://grammarist.com/spelling/led-lead/ for confirmation. Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 12:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The 100 (novel)

Hi,

I bought The 100 book trilogy last week, and I already start reading the first one. Once I finish the book, I am planning to write a brief summary before moving on the nest two. Once I've finished, can you copy edit the page?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@NeoBatfreak: Sure, I can look into it for you. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Even though I am half way though the first book, the summary of the first book would likely be as short as one of the episode summary from List of The 100 episodes. I should be done by the end of this week. Please keep in touch.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have finished writing the summary of the first book, please feel free to check it out.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What is your glitch

Somebody removed the linebreak between the name and the description, I did the same thing to the rest of the names. If you don't like it then please format the character list properly yourself, thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeraphine Gryphon: And what exactly would you describe as "proper formatting" yourself? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever is consistent and doesn't look horrible and dooesn't get reverted by you. Your choice. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I"m not sure how having the actor and character on one line, then an indented description below it is horrible? Especially compared to one great block of text. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No no, I didn't mean that that version looked horrible. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

List of The Musketeers episodes

http://www.radiotimes.com/tv/tv-listings#{"sd":"13-03-2015 20:00:00"} is my source. The BBC America cite you deleted in favour of a non BBC source is wrong. A note (efn|) could be added to the uk date when confirmed that it was shown earlier in America. Thankyou.REVUpminster (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You cited no source on the page - here does not count. And all I am getting is a TV schedule for today? Check if it you don't believe me. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the Radio Times has listed episode 9 but without a date as it will not be broadcast until the 20 March. TV Buzzer is an unreliable source but I am sorry you will not accept it. It has also copied the BBC copy word for word.REVUpminster (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

ps I just watched the recorded end credits and the continuity announcer said the next episode would be in two weeks, but can I cite it as only I and two million others might confirm it.REVUpminster (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You continue to state that it is not a reliable source, but you also continue to fail to explain how it is an unreliable source. If my source has indeed copied the BBC word for word, then that would make it a reliable source, since it's coming reliably from the BBC. Make sense? Your claims of 20 March are, unsurprisingly, also unsourced. Also, it sounds a lot like original research you're taking on here. (Given that you can't get these two million people to confirm this!) AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please click on http://www.bbcamerica.com/schedule/ and go to Saturday 3.14 You do not own The Musketeers page and do not be so quick to judge others. We all make mistakes including you.REVUpminster (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Re the filming locations, commons has number of images at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Doksany of Doksany that were used and would make a good gallery in the production section. REVUpminster (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

So, you can't even use the correct source for the 14th of March, you just use the source for the current date, and instead make no note of this in your poor sourcing? I never claimed to own it, not once - I am, however, a stickler for correct sourcing and referencing. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing the wrong information as you did is what gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. It is only as reliable as it's editors.REVUpminster (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Gallipoli

Re the miniseries, why did you object to a link from a reputable media website (Fairfax) with a trailer of the miniseries? (NB: no reference seen to the running of the last four episodes into two extended episodes in Oz & NZ, final still to come. Hugo999 (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Trailer and Interview: Gallipoli star hates war even more". Stuff/Fairfax. 3 February 2015.

@Hugo999: Because you seem to be unable to link it properly. What is:

*{{cite web|url=>*{{cite web|url= |title= |publisher= Stuff/Fairfax |date=8 July 2014}} |title= Trailer and Interview |publisher= Stuff/Fairfax |date=3 February 2015}}

? This is rendered as:

[>*. Stuff/Fairfax. 8 July 2014. Missing or empty |title= (help); "Trailer and Interview"] Check |url= scheme (help). Stuff/Fairfax. 3 February 2015.

You see the errors? Perhaps if you add it to the page correctly, it won't get removed again. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Flash (2014 TV series)

In this usage, "S.T.A.R. Labs" is the full name of the laboratory, so the word "Labs" as part of this name makes it a proper noun. This is also how it's identified in the show. And, in every other reference to S.T.A.R. Labs in this article except two (which are also wrong), the word "Labs" is capitalized. I capitalized all three of the uncapitalized references, both because that's how it's spelled, and to make the references throughout the article consistent. I see no difference between the three uncapitalized references which use the full "S.T.A.R. Labs" name, and the capitalized references.

Pi Day

Pleas discuss the Pi Day on Talk:Pi Day. Sekreterare (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

You recently reverted me at Constantine (TV series) and in the summary you included "YOU should read WP:OWN, you continue to add this against reverts by experienced editor."

First, I have never and will never claim ownership over the article which is what WP:OWN refers to. I don't believe anywhere that I have said or insinuated that I own that article.

Second, experience does not equal intelligence. These so-called experienced editors are completely ignoring the policies set forth in WP:ROWN.Pjstar35 (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pjstar35: Great idea for you: Perhaps try explaining this to said editor professionally, instead of reverting to personal attacks like you have previously, lowering your view and opinion on the matter. You insinuate it by continuously adding content against the policies yourself, and refusing to wait for consensus. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

From my experience, consensus doesn't really exist. It's just a way for people to do what they want by bending the policies to fit their needs. Sometimes personal attacks are the only way to get through to the stubborn close-minded idiots that won't listen to reason but I suppose stubborn close-minded idiots would just ignore that anyway.Pjstar35 (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please come back when you've actually matured in a way that you actually realize how ridiculous your above explanation is for your behaviour. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You've just made my point for me. The ignorance of young people is so amusing. Thanks! ;-) Pjstar35 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Young people". "Immature". Says the one who feels the need to personally attack users for differing opinions. Thanks for amusing me! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL! You're so butt-hurt. Let it go kid, just let it go. Pjstar35 (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to take a chill pill or ten! And now you're stalking my contributions. Great job. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ascension (miniseries)

Hi.

I've been trying to turn the synopsis into more of a narrative rather than a disjointed - and often hard to follow - series of one-liners. In some cases I have reduced the total number of bytes, in other cases I have expanded.

It will still take me a while to complete. I've tried to work off line for a day or two each time before bringing changes into the article, in order to link together events across different episodes (for example, Eva suddenly appears in episode 6, despite actually appearing in 1 and 3). My goal is to have minimal impact on the size of the article so that it does not lead to someone suggesting the episodes be broken into their own pages.

I notice that you are putting a lot of effort into this article, so your thoughts would be appreciated.Jmg38 (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Constantine reversion why?

The link ends up in the same place as before, it just doesn't look like sloppy markup. (Unlike my typing today.)

Corgi (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Date formats

Not sure why you bother changing the date format in a reference. Every date that is generated by Wikipedia uses the same format including the one in time stamps on our posts. There are millions out there in the same format. I normally only care about date formats in the article space. Nyth63 03:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't be rude

What the hell is this? Are you just C&P the credits everywhere, and deforming template functions? Just add it to the episode, else be reported for vandalism

It's the wikimedia JS code that causes the problem in the editor, so go complain to them or fix it. If wikimedia didn't use any bloated and buggy JS in the form editor there wouldn't be a problem. helmboy 03:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Helmboy: It's not hard to add two credits by hand. And if you look at the table, it's extremely obvious, even to the untrained eye, that you've screwed something up. Alex|The|Whovian 03:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Arrow (TV Series)

Hello,

I am admittedly new to the process of editing Wikipedia articles, as well as the "User talk" sections, hopefully i am actually using this correctly. However i am very curious as to why you removed my cast table in the Arrow main page. Although, i admit it was not perfect, it does certainly clear up the cast changes and make the whole thing easier to read, not to mention that the cast descriptions now are much longer than they seem to be in most series, indicating that it will soon be time to make a change. Your edit said it was not necessary, please explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Gustave H. (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monsieur Gustave H.: Welcome to the editing side of Wikipedia! You're most certainly using the User Talk section correct, but be sure to sign your posts with ~~~~. I later made a dummy edit on the Arrow article to expand upon my summary of why the table was not necessary - the addition of this particular table to the article has already been discussed and disagreed upon on the Talk Page for The Flash TV series: Talk:The Flash (2014 TV series)#Main character table. The discussion begins with such a table on the article for The Flash, but then evolves into Arrow as well. I hope that you find this informative as to why I reverted your edit. Happy editing! Alex|The|Whovian 02:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

You may remove this if you wish, but know that an edit does not need to be done via 'undo' or 'rollback' to count as a revert. Per WP:3RR: ". An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. "― Padenton|✉   23:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)