User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 15

Dungog History

Please leave the history of Dungog alone until you have something better to add. It's tone is fine and fills an obvious gap in this article. Better to encourage improvement than simply delete if you wish to make a contribution. Michael Michaelstor (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The tone is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia and much of the content is speculative. It looks like it has been lifted out of a tourist brochure. There is a verifiability issue as well, which is made worse by the speculative content. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing speculative about the content - it is based on careful research and comes from a book published by the local historical society. You would be lucky to find a tourist brochure with this level of detail. If by 'speculative' you mean the use of 'perhaps' in the first line. Well I'm sorry but sometimes that is simply the nature of historical knowledge. Michaelstor (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a tourist brochure, it is an encyclopaedia and use of words "perhaps", "possibly" and similar words that are speculative in their tone is inappropriate. Everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable in accordance with Wikepedia's policy. Speculation and personal analysis have no place here. Despite your assertion, the "nature of historical knowledge" here does not include such terminology. When you say that the content "comes from a book published by the local historical society" are you saying that it has been copied verbatim? --AussieLegend (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Template Australian road

Please explain to me how some infoboxes now show "Major Settlements" while others show "Major Suburbs", and, what happened to the good old "via"? Downsize43 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If we have to have "Major" anything I vote for the generic term "localities". Downsize43 (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahah! Now I see - Highways have "Settlements", Roads have "Suburbs", "nothings" have "via". Not terribly impressed with the results. Most Australian roads have nothing to do with suburbs, and "settlements" connotates little places in the bush rather than the towns and cities that are either on or bypassed by modern highways. If we are to retain the AUS template we need to get our act together on how it is structured and used, Downsize43 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

IAR can be used for various types of roads including streets, so I can see a use for suburbs,and they've been a part of the template since very early on. The addition of "settlements" was made in 2007 with this edit. The reason we haven't noticed this is because most uses of the template haven't included |type=. Had it not been for the TfD and the attempt to eliminate Infobox Outback Track, I doubt we would ever have noticed. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


Hey. Are you coming to RecentChangesCamp? (Should appear with a link on your watchlist because of the geonotice.) If you need a travel grant, please let WM-AU know and one still might be available. --23:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Workaholics: irony in title?

Hey there,

I noticed you removed the entire second clause on that sentence in the lede. Maybe you could weigh in here? I think it belongs and doesn't need a cite. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

iCarly seasons

iCarly - Season Split Defense

Hey Aussie, I heard you were tough when it came to the editing of this show so I need your help here. Over the course of a week, I've been over at the to defend the known season split of the second production season to form the broadcast marketed Season 3. A user, Kevinbrogers came by and challenged this because of sources referring to the production cycle. We had a heated discussion and I think I provided enough evidence to support the fact that there was a broadcast season split. He and his buddy, Alec2011 just tried throwing everything aside, even a Nick press statement that references the broadcast cycle during one of their special DVD releases of collection episodes from Seasons 2 and 3 of "iCarly" (the broadcast seasons). He just really seemed full of himself at this point. I explained about how the production cycles and the broadcast cycles work and I just want you to check this out and see if I am right for the episode list to be changed back the way it was. - Jabrona - 02:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I just want to point out that these accusations of "throwing everything aside" are completely untrue. I looked at all of them; they mostly consisted of blog posts or YouTube videos. The one reliable source was a press release that was very vague, which was later followed by a press release from the same website with differing information. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you stalking me now? Funny to find you ending up here. The blogs and Youtube videos were useful in a way but since those weren't good enough for you, I had to dig up other things. The press release info wasn't vague as it flat out referenced the broadcast cycle, and don't even get me started on the later press release. You still want to wrap your fingers around that one do you after I clearly got to the buttom of that like five times in the most obvious say possible that you shouldn't even have questioned it in the first place? Yeah, okay. - Jabrona - 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not stalking you. I just happened to be following this talk page after I had a previous discussion here. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
How long ago was that because I sure don't see anything written above that had anything to do with you. - Jabrona - 04:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Check the archives. It was back in May, I believe. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
May? That was sure a long time ago for you to be checking up on it now. But I'm not wanting to start a whole new issue here on Aussie's page so I'm going to just drop the manner. I'm sorry Aussie. - Jabrona - 04:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Aussie, just to let you know just in case you were confused, I meant I was going to drop the manner regarding what was said above between me and Kevin, not the issue I came to you with. I still want you to look that one over. - Jabrona - 21:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I've been busy over the past couple of days but I'll try to get to this as soon as possible. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

DVD Releases?

Aren't the DVD releases the final say in how a page should be laid out? You told me that bunches of times. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you speaking about a specific page? --AussieLegend (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
So it's page specific? Also what's your thoughts on the whole iCarly episodes talk page? - Alec2011 (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Aussie was asking you what page you were referring to since you didn't say what is was. Plus, regarding DVD releases, it's clear to me they don't have a final say. For example, the "Meet the Browns" TV series DVD releases of each season is different compared to how it's layered on TV. For example:
Season 1 - 10 episodes
Season 2 - 26 episodes
Season 3 - 42 episodes
Season 4 - 54 episodes
Season 5 - 8 episodes
Season 1 DVD - Episodes 1-20
Season 2 DVD - Episodes 21-40
Season 3 DVD - Episodes 41-60
Season 4 DVD - Episodes 61-80
Each DVD release season contains the next set of 20 episodes each different from how they were broadcasted on TV. In this case apart from iCarly, exactly why it's like this is unexplainable. But it doesn't make sense to change it's episode list to go by the DVD layout here. The show has five broadcast seasons and that's what it's going by. - Jabrona - 07:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Normally we use DVD cover art in season article infoboxes, and colour the infobox and season list based on the DVD colours but, except for exceptional circumstances, episodes are ordered by original air date, not by DVD episode order. In most cases, DVD seasons do reflect the season breakdown of the episodes, but not always. For this reason, it's best to look at various reliable sources to see how seasons are split. In the case of iCarly, the evidence seems very heavily on the side of four seasons having aired until now, with a fifth season on its way. This evidence includes press releases from Nickleodeon that specifically state season 5 will be airing in 2012. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but there's still the evidence that states that there was a split for broadcast purposes within the production of the second season. Aside from Dan's blog [1] that was like the most reasonable information on the issue for quite a while, I came across this Nathan Kress interview prior to Dan writing that blog regarding the second and third seasons: [2], also a May 2011 Nick press release statement linked from their website, also referenced it when talking about the release of the "i<3 iCarly Collection" [3]. They specifically state the set to have episodes from Seasons 2 and 3, and all the episodes they listed on there in the set are with the 2xx production coding. This is the later evidence I provided on the Talk Page I thought was very useful. Of course that never truly meant the seasons had to be referred to that way due to it's production cycle hence why certain web sources use them specifically Nick, the cast and crew of the show of course with the numbering, and when it came to the DVD release labels. Kevinbrogers tried to backhand the press reference due to the fact that a month later, they were talking about the DVD release of the broadcast Season 4 as "The Complete 3rd Season". But obviously that doesn't mean anything considering it's due to the production cycle, and it was clear this was the case when three months before in February, they were talking about the release of "Season 2: Volume 3" in April. Plus, I believe some of the "Season 3" episodes were already included in the "Season 2: Volume 2" DVD and in return, the Season 2 episode "iTwins" was placed on the Volume 3 DVD set. So these episodes were even like switched around for some reason through the volume releases. - Jabrona - 19:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
There certainly seems to be some confusion over this, the statement from Dan's blog, "I kinda don't even know myself. Well, I do and I don't" attests to that. The DVD set does only contain episodes with season 2 production codes, despite saying it contains episodes from seasons 2 & 3. However, all of this falls by the wayside when you take into account the more recent press release from Nickelodeon which says, in part, "Nickelodeon Greenlights Season Five of Blockbuster Hit "iCarly"" followed by "SANTA MONICA, Calif., April 14, 2011 -- Nickelodeon, the number-one entertainment brand for kids, has greenlit a fifth season of its mega-hit comedy series iCarly. The new season will roll out in 2012".[4] This is a straight forward statement from Nickelodeon and, based on this, our verifiability policy requires that we treat the new season as season 5, not 6. Since we can't have two season fives there really seems no alternative but to treat all episodes with 2xx production codes as season 2. This is supported by other reliable sources, such as TVGuide and the episode production codes. It is entirely possible that somebody decided to split season 2 into 2 seasons at sometime, but the season 5 press release suggests they've rethought this. As far as I can find, there never was a statement from Nickelodeon saying that the season was split so, other than a questionable claim from a blog, a non-authoritative comment from an actor in an interview and a press release that requires some form of WP:SYNTH to reach the s2/3 split conclusion, there's nothing that really stands up to WP:V that can be used to support the current listing at List of iCarly episodes. Please note, I don't watch this program, I'm only using available evidence to form my opinion on this. As a side note, it's not unusual for Nickelodeon to have seasons much longer than are normal with other netorks. The Penguins of Madagascar has aired 112 episodes to date, in only 2 seasons. The first season consisted of 48 episodes broadcast over 15 months, while season 2 has now been going for 22 months with 64 episodes having been aired. A 21 month, 45 episode second season for iCarly is really not unusual. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The thing with Dan's blog I'm afraid was a misread. I don't know why people keep misreading this because I took the impression that he said this: "I kinda don't even know myself. Well, I do and I don't" due to him not knowing when the marketed third season would begin airing from the remaining 2xx production episodes, not that he didn't understand the issue. That makes sense, otherwise he wouldn't have flat-out confirmed that "We're in the second season now" (since the broadcasted Season 3 haven't aired yet), "the third season will begin airing in a few weeks (with a new opening sequence)". Apparently, it began sooner than expected since those few weeks turned into just 11 days since he wrote the blog entry on September 1, 2009 and "iThink They Kissed" aired on September 12. Most commonly, him working on a new intro for those episodes certainly expands more on this when it comes to the broadcast split. He surely wouldn't have had a good reason to make it unless he was being informed that there was a new season airing and there were like 20 episodes stored? Also, I find it strange how all of the "Season 3" episodes are directly coded after another (227-245) with the exception of one episode that's labeled 223. As for the special collection DVD set containing episodes with Season 2 production codes, yeah well they're all from the same production season so that's understandable. The coding obviously couldn't be changed. The press release statement regarding a Season 5 renewal was a month before the article on this DVD came out. Due to the production cycle, it's apparent Nick would still follow it, hence the DVD labels and calling the seasons by their production labels. They are associated with the show's production, so if they're referring to a fifth season renewal then they must mean the production season that would have the 5xx coding due to it's labeling. I currently wrote to a Nick press writer for a definitive answer last week on the issue, but haven't got one yet so I doubt I'd get something. But in the meantime, I do find Dan's blog (read carefully), Nathan's interview (he is associated with the production with those associated with the network), and even a Nick press release as proof that a broadcast split did happen. I don't care much for "The Penguins of Madagascar" since nothing seems to indicate a split for that show apart from what we have here with this show. Plus, it's a cartoon and Nick does run those a bit differently especially with how their segments are managed. - Jabrona - 07:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Given that everyone else seems to be "misreading" Dan's blog post and you are the only one who isn't, have you considered it might actually be you who is misreading it? Most of the conclusions that you've made in this post would constitute original research if we applied them to the article. Everything we add to Wikipedia must be verifiable and the only verifiable content we have in relation to the upcoming season is that it is season FIVE. That's authoritative, since it's from the network. What Nathan Kress said 3 years ago in relation to production aspects is not authoritative; he's an actor, not a member of the production staff. Dan is part of production, but he doesn't determine which season is which and the uncertainty in his blog post damages the credibility of what he says. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I certainly did not misread Dan's blog entry and neither did a lot of other people who took it into account. As I've posted out here and on the talk page, why would Dan later say: "We're in the second season now, the third season will begin airing in a few weeks (with a new opening sequence)"? That doesn't sound like some one whose confused on the issue. In ties to how he started out the blog, to me it certainly sounds more like he didn't know when the broadcast third season was to air since he never gave out a direct air date. The only people that have overlooked that so far has been Kevin, Alec, and now you. Plus we have the fact Dan made a new intro for those specific episodes as a result of that, even one that was coded 223 when the others were directly 227-245. True, Nathan is just a cast member but I believe his word still takes into account of all of this considering he's associated with Dan and the staff members as well as the production. He only tell what he knows and he certainly knew something on behalf of this. Plus, we have a Nick press release referencing this, the broadcast cycle of course - after they had already written what Nick said regarding a fifth season renewal due to that production having a 5xx coding. - Jabrona - 08:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
"That doesn't sound like some one whose confused on the issue" - If you look at only that statement it doesn't but hwen you look at the whole post:
"Believe it or not, I kinda don't even know myself. Well, I do and I don't." - That clearly indicates that he's not really sure. He goes on to acknowledge that the boundaries between seasons aren't very clear, which is a bit peculiar because the production order makes that very clear.
"I guess what the network is calling the "3rd" season starts airing a few weeks from now" - As you've acknowledged above, what you call the third season started airing only 11 days later, which begs the question, whereis the source confirming that "iThink They Kissed" is part of the third season? The blog says "The 3rd season starts airing in a few weeks (with a new opening sequence)", which I assume is what people have used to determine this, but application of that is, at best, WP:SYNTH since there's no direct source.
As I've said, everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Sources must directly support claims being made. We can't assume. We now have an authoritative source that says season five will be airing in 2012. That means the season before it must be season four, not five as it is currently listed, as there simply can't be two fifth seasons. The logical conclusion is that all of the episodes witha 2xx production code must be part of season 2. Unless you can find sources that directly support a season 2 split into s & 3, that's how we have to treat the list. Of course, if you can find sources, then we have a whole host of other problems. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, why are we trying to make Dan's blog sound full of itself just to discard the fact that there was a split in the second season production? Clearly he wasn't really sure when the new airing season according to the network was going to air. The boundaries of the seasons are clear considering "iThink They Kissed" had the new opening sequence that the following 19 episodes ended up having. It's clear that was to be the start of the new airing season. It's makes me wonder why people question the obvious. Dan apparently thought it would have started later than expected. How many times did we have episode airings found out within days of their airing? "iBalls" was put on blast after "iStill Psycho" aired being put out to air that following week, for example. There certainly can be two fifth seasons: a broadcast marketed one and the production one with the 5xx coding one. We don't determine this. Just because codes say one thing doesn't mean that's how we have to follow it. We're just simply following what was put out people are trying to ignore here. If they put out a broadcast split and we have the show's creator, a cast member, and one of the network's press release saying so then I think that's enough to not to question it. Especially the Nick press release on the "i<3 iCarly Collection", stating that Season 2 and Season 3 episodes were on there, and all of the episodes listed having to have the 2xx coding, indicating a split did happen to result in two broadcasts seasons. There's no getting around that. I don't know what other useful sources you want but apparently I must look for them, though I think I found all I needed apart from Dan's blog. So by accepting the split, sources indicating about a Season 5 in 2012 (which has been out since April 2011 so it's not brand new) is understandable considering that season is going to have a 5xx number coding in it's production. And seeing how the DVD labels are, it's no surprise Nick would call that production season Season 5 since that's technically what it is due to it's production cycle. - Jabrona - 09:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
"had the new opening sequence that the following 19 episodes ended up having. It's clear that was to be the start of the new airing season" - No, it's not clear. It's an assumption and therefore original research unless a citation can be provided to prove it.
"If they put out a broadcast split and we have the show's creator, a cast member, and one of the network's press release saying so then I think that's enough to not to question it." - The show's creator admitted he wasn't sure, the actor isn't part of the production team so he's not authoritative and there is no press release that directly supports the episode being part of season 3. The press release is about DVDs. There's no evidence that "they put out a broadcast split". --AussieLegend (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You're clearly misreading Dan's blog. He was sure on the issue, he wasn't sure when it was going to start for the 3rd time. Nathan Kress is a cast member, but that doesn't mean that he can't be informed about these things, especially when he was talking about it a month before Dan put his two cents out. If Dan wasn't sure then how the heck could he be so sure? Doesn't add up. Dan had to be sure in order for him to say something. The press release talks about episodes from Seasons 2 and 3 being on the DVD release they were talking about in May 2011, episodes that only had the 2xx coding together but made up the broadcast Seasons 2 and 3, a direct reference indicating the situation. A source so far I was able to find indicating that "iThink They Kissed" was the started of the new airing season was this: [5]. But it's a blog entry written on the day the episode aired but before it actually aired. But Dan later made this blog entry regarding the episode being the Season 3 premiere: [6]. Here's another web source from 2010 about an "iCarly" contest that launch after the airing of "iGot a Hot Room" where it references that episode as the start of Season 4: [7]. There was also this media article regarding Noah Munck I linked to the talk page that referenced "iPsycho" as a Season 3 episode I figured shared something in this [8]. We have a few good sources here supporting this. - Jabrona - 10:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Rocket City Rednecks

I assume your reversal of my edits to Rocket City Rednecks was because I copied the summary info from the MSN TV site. I thought if I referenced the site, like I did, it was legal. I'm not arguing I just want to know for future reference because I'm sure I've seen another editor on a different TV shows page do the opposite. They removed a long summary written by someone else and replaced it with the short MSN summary. Psion20 (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Content should not be copied and pasted from other websites. All content at Wikipedia, except for quotations where appropriate attribution is provided, should be editors own work. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks I'm starting to figure out how this thing is done. Psion20 (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

iCarly RfC

Thank you for weeding out that RfC. Thing is/was getting silly. -Fumitol|talk|cont 05:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again. Sorry if I was getting too far into the conversation. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

Awards Announcement (Australia Day Eve, 2005).jpg Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Top Gear Series 18 epsiode 1 guest(s) revert edit

Hi AussieLegend, In relation to you revering my edit in relation to the Guest star for the new top gear series 18. I can agree with you for but what about the reference for ( this page is clearly talking about the new series 18 episode 1 and clearly shows in a picture standing on the top gear track with the Stig which clearly shows that will be the guest for the first episode of the new series. Is this not a credible source? Jonny109 (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake. I've partially restored the edit, leaving out Sorry about that. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
That's ok thanks for partially revering my edit Jonny109 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

West Wing page titles

Can West Wing page titles at least be redirects to the season pages? E.g., 17 People --> The West Wing (season 2)#17 People or something. (It'd also be nice to have the page history below the redirect, but I'm less concerned about that....) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean as I've been doing?[9][10][11][12] Only the first group of articles were prodded. I've been redirecting the others. The reality though is that the redirects aren't needed. Most TV series don't have redirects for every, or even most episodes. some have none at all. Episodes can be located from the main series article or the main list. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I mean for the articles that have existed for almost five years. I think keeping redirects around would be nice for users looking for the content or users coming to the content from old links. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

Can you continuing doing it please? I want to get 2,000 edits. I'll give you a branstar. I promise.User:WBJB003|WBJB003]] | talk 15:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you edit appropriately. It's not about how many edits you have. If you edit inappropriately you may find yourself unable to edit at all and you won't even reach 400 edits. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That Girl

Link me to the exact discussion where IMDb and were, by consensus, deemed to be unreliable references. If they were so unreliable, why are they still under external links? Why are they still cited on so many filmography and television series' pages if they were deemed untrustworthy? I really do not think most people across the Internet would go to the effort to add completely unreliable information to specific film pages or television series' pages, especially a nearing 50-year-old television show like That Girl. I mean, by that thinking, you might as well not even cite TV Guide nor MSN, as information on those pages were probably made up by people as well.

Also, your reversion to the episode title being "Odphdypashmcaifss" is not consistent with what the acronym is supposed to mean ("Oh, Don, Poor Don..."). What does the "h" stand for, by your reasoning? (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is widely as accepted as not being a reliable source for episode information because the content is user contributed and the site lacks editorial oversight. It's specifically addressed in some guidelines, such as WP:RS/IMDB. There have been numerous discussions at WP:RSN regarding imdb, including here and all regard it as unreliable. suffers the same problems, linke IMDB the content is user contributed and the site lacks editorial oversight. References using and imdb exist in articles because they've escaped the eye of experienced editors. Unlike imdb and, TVGuide, msn and other reliable sources don't accept content from the general public, instead sourcing their content directly from networks. Regarding "Odphdypashmcaifss", Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that we base content on reliable secondary sources, and we aren't allowed to "interpret" what they say. Nor are we permitted to substitute our own, original research, as you did in this edit. Content needs to be verifiable. Both TVGuide and msn are reliable sources, while imdb and are not. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh please, save your little blocking threats on the IP address talk page. You can't have it completely your way without fights, so you resort to this. Besides, it wouldn't help. I'd turn my modem off and get a new IP address next time I connect, but really, I'm just about done with this. If by what you're saying you're implying that there's an absence of mostly valuable content at both of those sites, you're oversimplifying things and overlooking what you yourself are doing, which is continuing to reinstate inconsistent information. You can't have it both ways; it's either "Odphdypashmcaifss" or "Oh, Don, Poor Don", and saying one is an alternate makes no sense, because the acronym is supposed to mean the expanded title, therefore they mean the same thing and the sites you cited couldn't even spell the acronym right. That's not interpreting, it's quite obviously the intention, otherwise it doesn't mean anything.
Many editors themselves remove references; it's not against Wikipedia guidelines to do so, it's just considered "inappropriate". But not everything on the Internet is factually correct nor should necessarily be cited, so you can wave your warnings at me all you want. Edit warring is just another little term to shove at someone so you can prevent them from showing what you keep putting in/taking out of an article is wrong. Also, stop speaking down to me. You're not superior because you can log into a website and link to Wikipedia guidelines. I'm familiar with quite a few. I'm also aware of what "original research" is, and I think citing a DVD cover is hardly original research. It's not exactly fully accessible, but nor is citing a hard copy of a book, which is what many pages do do. Also, my "removal" was not unexplained; read my edit summaries next time. (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
You didn't explain why you chose to replace content cited from a reliable source based on original research, which is what claiming "Not consistent with the purported version of the acronym" is doing. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify

Hi, you recently removed my comment from User:Drmargi's talk page, citing Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. I don't see how this tallies with Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments which only allows removal of comments within certain parameters (without the objection of the OP and I certainly do object), none of which I can see applying here. I have what I believe to be a valid query with the editor over a comment that they made and rather than getting into an edit war on the article page I tried to address it on their talk page, which was summarily expunged without explanation. Removing my comment removes my right to reply which doesn't say a lot of for the wiki principle of co-operation. danno 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines is aimed primarily at talk pages in article space. Wikipedia:User pages applies to all pages in user space. WP:BLANKING deals with editors removing content from their user pages, which includes their talk pages. Editors can remove anything, with a few exceptions, from their talk pages and, as Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments says, if a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
So after hundreds of hours of editing, trying to rub along with everyone including shrugging off the abuse from vandals and with precious little in the way of recognition, when another supposedly established editor makes a groundless and offensive accusation about my editing and I try to address the issue in a civil manner, I get slapped down whilst they continue their incivility and hide behind wikipedia guidelines? Where's the equity in that? danno 19:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with restoring comments. If an editor won't discuss something with you on their talk page, as is their prerogative, bring it up on the relevant article's talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I genuinely mis-interpreted the intention of the Talk Page Guidelines. I just found the situation very frustrating. Thanks and apologies for being a dick and taking my frustration out on you and your talk page. danno 21:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


I appreciate your help with my little detractor. He's annoyed because I edited a rather one-sided and very cliched addition of critics' comments about Downton Abbey 2. It still has problems with one-sidedness, but I left that alone until I have time to research reviews in the UK, and the US, where it premiered on Sunday. Drmargi (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No, your "little detractor" has a problem with being accused of making "misleading" and "misrepresented" edits when it's clear that you didn't even bother to read the cited references because the resultant edit didn't suit your personal viewpoint. Just as it suited you to hide my response when I called you on it. I could provide references for 4 national UK papers (and not just hackney-ridden tabloids) that support EXACTLY the edit that I made. I find your attitude unhelpful and your choosing to subsequently talk patronisingly about me on another user's talk page when you don't even have the manners to discuss the matter with me rather sad. danno 20:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Suite Life on Deck

I stumbled on the character pages for this series are just bad. Outside of London's page, there was maybe one good source in all the six main characters pages. They are just chalk full of OR and cruft ("We never knew if Frank and Bailey liked each other but they did go down the water slide together in the episode ' Shiponotized '") and TBH, I don't know why those article were created when we have this. Regardless, I'd like to do a major prune job and then maybe a merge to List of major characters in The Suite Life on Deck or something, but since you have obviously put a lot of work into these articles, I'd like to get your input first. Thoughts? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the work I have done on these pages has been attempting to stop the pages getting worse than they are. If you feel you can improve them please do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

NCIS: Los Angeles

Why was edit the colors of season one and two of NCIS: Los Angeles? -- LAW CSI (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The colours haven't been edited recently and I'm not really sure why those colours were chosen. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I need your opinion

You know I always value your opinion on these things, Aussie. Would you take a look at the following diff [13], and tell me what you think? I warned a vandal using what I felt was the appropriate level warning for a bit of vandalism misplaced on the US (v. UK) Top Gear page. In the diff, you'll see the editor who followed "corrected" (problem #1 -- the arrogant assumption he/she had the right to correct a warning) the warning by removing mine (problem #2, removing another editor's contribution on a talk page) and adding his/her much stronger one, rather than simply adding a stronger warning. At first, I let it go, but it's continued to bug me a bit. Then, this evening, the guy comes onto my talk page, removes a sarcastic comment by the warned editor that I was ignoring (problem #3, in no way did it meet the criteria for removal), and gave me a verbal spanking regarding how to handle vandals (problem #4, lack of civility even as he'd calling me on it!) Granted, I could have been a touch more temperate in the wording of an edit summary, but this is killing mice with hand grenades. Given that, I thought I'd have you take a peek at the original diff and see what you think. At the very least, it was all badly handled, I'd argue, and certainly not civil. I don't want to make a big deal of it, just get a bit of perspective. Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your talk page is on my watchlist, so I saw this edit and checked out the IP's contributions. The IP has only made two edits and one of those was to his/her talkpage, so a final warning is inappropriate. I've restored your warning as that was the appropriate level. Your edit summary at the Top Gear page was a bit excessive, but I completely understood why you made it when I saw the IP's edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
That's not what I'm asking you. My concern is with the editor who made the changes, which I felt overstepped. What's your thinking on that matter? --Drmargi (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
He should not have replaced your warning, which I alluded to in my edit to the IP's talk page.[14] WP:UP#Handling inappropriate content applies to the edits to your page. Removing the IP's post was inappropriate and his comments to you were a bit presumptuous, but fall short of incivility. His suggestion about archiving your talk page was actually a good idea. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought, with respect to the warning and my talk page, but it's nice to have another opinion, since I'd never run across such brazen behavior. I'd go so far as to call his comments officious, but that's eye of the beholder stuff. Anyway, thanks for the thoughts. --Drmargi (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


I've removed the proposed deletion tag from 2162 Votes and explained my reasoning in the talk page. As you've shown an interest in it, your further input on this article would be appreciated. (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated on the article's talk page, there's no requirement to explain why an article was prodded, although I did notify the article creator. The prod notice clearly explained why the episode was prodded, it is an "unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject".[15] The article consists almost entirely of a description of the plot, which fails WP:PLOT. The notes section, which is the only non-plot content, consists of trivia and original research. Despite your assertion in your edit summary, the article hasn't been singled out: I've been reviewing all episode articles and there are currently 119 episode articles that suffer the same problem. Another 7 have references but still fail to credibly assert notability and/or fail WP:PLOT. Nine more could probably be prodded but I intend taking those to AfD if they aren't fixed. That's 136 in total. This is part of a bigger project that has, so far, included creation of season articles for the first 5 seasons (seasons 6 and 7 already existed), reworking the s6 & 7 articles to eliminate duplication errors and reworking the main list article to avoid duplication errors and properly transclude the s6 & 7 article, (the s6 article wasn't even acknowledged!) and to fix various other issues. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

West Wing

Hi - you recently redirected Drought Conditions to season 6 of The West Wing. Are there other articles you did this for? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, why do you ask? I should point out that the article is unreferenced and fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. As a plot only description, it clearly fails WP:PLOT, as do many of The West Wing episode articles. As suggested in the DRV, they really should be mass merged into the season articles. Unreferenced articles on non-notable subjects simply shouldn't exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily disagree - it's just that unless a general overhaul is carried out in which we merge all the episode articles into season articles, we can't really get rid of individual episodes. As I said in the DRV, Wikipedia doesn't have to cover individual episodes in the degree of detail that we currently do, but given that we do, we shouldn't leave readers wondering what happens between, say, "The Last Hurrah" and "Tomorrow." If you want to do a mass merge or redirect, I suggest going to WP:TV for guidance/consensus. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There's no reason why we can't get rid of episode articles progressively. We don't have a requirement to have articles for every episode. Like any subject, an episode needs to be notable to have its own article and episode articles that don't meet the requirements of WP:V, WP:N and MOS:TV shouldn't exist in the first place. Deletion is a valid way of handling the problem of articles that have no place in Wikipedia. Obviously the problem with deletion is that the episode summaries are lost but redirection is an alternative. The episode summaries are still available for those who wish to take time to merge them into the season articles, but the articles that breach our policies and guidelines effectively no longer exist. As for leaving readers wondering what happens between episodes, the purpose of episode articles is not to provide a detailed plot summary. It is to provide a real-world encyclopaedic treatment of the episode in question. If only a plot summary is needed, the "|ShortSummary=" field in {{Episode list}} is the place for that. An entire article shouldn't be created just for a plot summary, That's a basic point of WP:PLOT. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Next Great Baker

I must apologize for my error in the vandalism message I sent to an IP address. I presumed that their edit was vandalism because it is known for some vandals to have made slight changes that are untrue. I am sorry for this inconvenience.--GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 15:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory

Thank you for educating me on an obscure bit of Manual of Style. Bazinga! Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at Purplewowies's talk page.
Message added 08:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


If I see the citation needed template, then I put on the refimprove template.WBJB003 | talk 20:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That's pointless duplication. Only one template is needed. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent iCarly revert

Sorry about that; I didn't realize the changes had been made by multiple people. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the edit, but the rest of the list needs to be fixed as well. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, iCarly iGot Jungle Worms is totally realy episode please add the List of episodes. Thank you. (Wnnse (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC))

Unfortunately your content is speculative, requires an element of WP:SYNTH, is against consensus, sourced to unreliable sources etc. It can't be added yet. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Prod. Code Question

I just made an edit at the So Random! episodes page as you can see here. I noticed they list the Justin Bieber and the China Anne McClain episode as #326. Should I still keep it listed or is that not a reliable reference anymore? Should we keep it in case Disney made a mishap and they may change it? I'm not sure how to go about it. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We have to go by what the source says. That they've got two with 326 is confusing, but we can't speculate as to which is correct. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. It could be they put the wrong number but until Futon Critic changes something different, I'll make a hidden note that both number's are correct. - Alec2011 (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Good Luck Charlie characters and Good Luck Charlie

I am trying to clear up a backlog of split tags. This article has a split tag and it appears concensus at the discussion to do the split. However, when I tried to do the split, I found a stern warning placed by you not to do so without discussion. Can you confirm that you are ok with me making the split? If you are not, can you place a justification as to why on the talk page and remove the split tag? Op47 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion the result appears to be "no consensus to split at this time". --AussieLegend (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou. Op47 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Terra Nova

I know this was dicussed already with a deep discussion that you participated in but I'd like you to look at this. Someone else started a new discussion and I agree. The first discussion was when the show just started. I think it should only be listed as 1 episode each. The Fox website has the fist episode listed as Genesis and the final episode lasted as Occupation/Resistance as episode 1 and episode 11. The Futon Critic lists the first episode as Genesis and the link says the "2-hour Series Premiere" meaning it was one continuous episode. Same with episode 11. iTunes lists episode 1 as Genesis as 1:26:25 so it's one episode. - Alec2011 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Castle Episodes

I am wondering as to why I can not "split" the episode list. Every show that I see has this type of Set- up. And I am doing it by the book as to what Wikipedia and HTML likes. So Please Help me understand why you are erasing my work. All that I am doing is trying to keep the episode list more organized. It makes it easier to go around and only has the information that is need. Episode list should only need the episode. Season Pages, in example Grey's Anatomy Season 1, are they type of pages that need to description of the episodes. So Please contact me back and explain to me what I am doing wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerems45 (talkcontribs) 17:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've indicated on your talk page twice now, there is a standing consensus not to split the article. Accordingly, no split should occur until it is discussed on the article's talk page and a new consensus is reached. You can view the discussion here. The splitting has not been carried out in accordance with WP:SPLIT and the article is at the wrong location. There is no point splitting an episode list unless you add significant extra content, as recommended by MOS:TV. Simply adding cast information is not sufficient. Splitting one article into multiple articles without good reason makes navigation more difficult for readers and there is no justification for series with a single season, as was the case when you split List of Ringer episodes. WP:SIZERULE recommends that consideration be given to splitting articles once an article reaches 50-60kB of readable prose. Even using a very loose interpretation of the definition of readable prose, the amount of readable prose in the current version of the article is only 24kB,[16], which is well below WP:SIZERULE's upper limit of the "Length alone does not justify division" category. Splitting is typically reserved for shows with several seasons, making the "List of" article overly long, and that just isn't the case here, even after three full seasons. Based on article growth to date and current size I don't see a need until after season seven, unless substantial season specific content can be added to the season articles. Without that extra content, splitting forces the reader to look in multiple articles for the most basic episode content that is currently all available in a single article. It makes far more sense to include everything in one page if the only substantial content is the episode tables. The cast and characters information can be included here if necessary, although that should be limited to seasonal cast changes, since the cast is already handled in the main article. Managing multiple articles is almost always more unwieldy than managing one so a split should only occur when necessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Heads up! I just reverted yet another split against consensus. It seems to be the same couple people over and over again. --Drmargi (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
You'd think an editor with 181,000 edits to his name would know how to split an article properly.[17] --AussieLegend (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? What bothers me is editors make the splits like lemmings: because the see other editors do it, with no thought for why, or how it affects readers' access to content. Then we get the rationale such as above. 8/10 would be better undone and the content confined to one article.--Drmargi (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I see Jerems45 is at it again. I reverted him on the Rizzoli and Isles episode article, which he split. I didn't get to see the season articles; another editor dove in and redirected before I had a chance to recommend deletion. I just left a message alongside your latest recommending he work with you, or at least start talking. We can only hope he will. --Drmargi (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 14:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Terra Nova MOS-guided edit

Can you point out the text bit that supports your revert over that of Steelbar's? The inclusion of the table seems a bit more concise and more accessible to the casual/regular reader, and the preference of prose would seem to not apply to where else the program is broadcast. Call me curious. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your curiosity is entirely understandable. As per WP:TABLE, tables "should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list." (emphasis added) MOS:TV#Broadcast says "When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged, Wikipedia is not a television guide. Apart from the channel of origin for the series, editors are encouraged to instead detail English-speaking countries that the series appears through prose form." (emphasis added) The table is probably a better way of presenting the content that's presently in the article, but that creates the problem of a table that people will populate with unencyclopaedic information contravening MOS:TV#Broadcast - It happens far too often. As per MOS:TV#Broadcast, the broadcast section shouldn't simply be a list, it should contain encyclopaedic information prefereably presented in prose form. The section needs to be written in a way that complies with MOS:TV and that won't fit into a table. If what's there now is converted to a table, it will always be a non-compliant table. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


That's not ad that's evidence that will turn this episode. (Wnnse (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC))

I'm really not sure what you're saying. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Pan Am episodes

I certainly understand wanting to summarize, and my contribution did that. A couple of points. Firstly, my summary removes the repeating of the same information in two consecutive sentences -- fourteen episodes. Secondly, you mentioned the restoring of an episode "count" in the remarks and returned to the use of "as of". Since the season has ended, the count has completed and is no longer on-going; however, the use of "as of" suggests an on-going count and creates a false impression that more episodes will follow. I certainly don't mind the use of "as of" -- but only if the count is on-going (i.e., if or when the second season begins to air). Right now, it is not.

Please reconsider the following:

"The first season of Pan Am, consisting of fourteen episodes, premiered on ABC on September 25, 2011 and ended on February 19, 2012."

It summarizes that the first season and the fourteen episodes aired between the two dates.Television fan (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Two and a Half Men

There is an IP editor who keeps season span information to the character list in the infobox despite the edit note preceding the list. I have already reverted three of these edits and have tried to discuss this with said editor on his/her talk page. However, what's really frustrating is that if I revert his edit again, then I technically will have violated WP:3RR, but this editor does not seem to want to discuss this change at all. I have no idea what to do; would you please advise? This would be helpful to know for future reference if nothing else. Davejohnsan (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand the purpose of WP:3RR but it does become frustrating when there's an editor like this. I've lost track of the number this has happened at kids' TV program articles where I've been the only adult editing the page. Generally, requesting page protection at WP:RFPP has been the fastest way to stop IPs edit-warring but, in this case, taking it to WP:3RRN was the best way to address the issue. I wouldn't be too worried when you get to 3 reverts as programs like Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory are watched by many editors and somebody is bound to come along and fix it, even if you can't. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory

I restored the deleted episode summary at Big Bang Theory. I wrote that straight out of my head (though others subsequently edited it). Perhaps another website copied wikipedia, that happens often. Czolgolz (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

iCarly Merge Stuff

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

So what was the consensus on that debate? -Fumitol|talk|cont 18:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the weight is against a split. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hold your horses. A user just commented there in defense of it a day ago and is coming back. Discussion has continued once again. - Jabrona - 02:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
If the user returns it will continue but there is still no convincing evidence that we should include a split in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by there still being convincing evidence that we should include a split in the article? - Jabrona - 02:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
That was a typo, I missed a word. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
And to think you nearly had me there for a second. Oh well. It's a pity you think that way because I see all the convincing evidence there is and I provided more than enough of it. I don't want to keep bickering at this, but I will do so because I know it's the case. - Jabrona - 03:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we provided more than enough information that a split didn't occur. It's a pity you think that way because I see you'll do anything to keep this from happening and from what I've seen discussed on the iCarly Talk Page, a merge will happen weather you like it or not. This isn't Jabronapedia, it's Wikipedia and you need to follow their rules, NOT your own. The way you've acted towards other users, you've already broken the Civility of Wikipedia. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
A split occurred and you're not going to tell me otherwise because you don't want it to be the case. Plus, you like to bring up iTunes at times regarding how an episode is listed on there and whether a one-hour special counts as one or two episodes. Well look at how it happens to have this show's seasons listed as. And further more I was hardly being rude and trying not to be while being tripled teamed here by three people and had to hold up a good defense. I've been spoke too twice regarding civility a while back throughout this whole thing so don't get yourself carried away with that because of us lately having a heated discussion. I certainly don't want to argue all of this with you on Aussie's page. - Jabrona - 04:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Your claim that you are "certainly not going to argue this all with you on Aussie's page" lacks credibility. Two hours after saying this you're back, adding arguments to your non-argument, including stuff that hasn't even been mentioned here,[18] ironically even changing your claim from not "not going to argue" to "don't want to argue".[19] Well, gues what, the former is correct. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Are you really going to make a big deal out of an edit I made regarding the argument between me and Alec2011? Are you intending to make me look bad? I went back to add in some stuff to elaborate on the things Alec said I didn't touch on before I wanted to hear his opinion on, something I confronted him on his talk page he flat out ignored. I figured he'll be back here to say something and since he didn't, I wanted that edited in there. Also, he acts like I've been rude and violent throughout this whole discussion when I haven't and you only had to tell me twice about being civil weeks ago. While I did say I was "not going to argue", I meant I did not want to carry out the whole discussion right and left if he were to respond. I changed it to make myself clearer. - Jabrona - 08:59, 25 February 2012

What you "elaborated" on had nothing to do with what was said. Alec2011 didn't even mention iTunes here, so there was no point mentioning it after you had said you weren't going to argue.[20] If you say you are not going to argue then you should stand by it. If you want to argue with another editor, you don't do it on another editor's talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, let me clear the whole iTunes thing with you. Alec was saying how there was evidence indicating a split with iCarly didn't happen (which I certainly don't believe). I was referencing how he occasionally brings up iTunes when it comes to how an episode list is especially if it's labeled as one episode and not two if it's an hour-long special he talked about on the Talk Page regarding the iCarly episodes. Well, iTunes happen to list the iCarly seasons the way it's apparent airing cycle is that he doesn't believe is the case. He has yet to say anything on behalf of that as I brought it to his attention on his talk place twice but ignored it. - Jabrona - 09:25, 25 February 2012
I really don't care. iTunes is irrelevant here on my talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I was just clearing you on why it was brought up. I apologize. - Jabrona - 09:50, 25 February 2012

Short Summary Section?

I don't really see why you need the Short Summary section (as you stated here) if there is no summary? It's used elsewhere on other episode pages where they remove the Short Summary when new episodes are added with just the title and airdate. Where's the rule that states it has to be there? - Alec2011 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no rule that anything on the page has to be there, but it's inconsistent to not include the field in only a few episodes. If there's no current use for the field, then it can be commented out, but it shouldn't be removed. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You mean "hide it?" They are removed on the ones I've seen, but I can hide it. The one you removed it from had 4 episode summaries hidden, that's more than a few. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I meant hide it, although hiding the episode summaries seems a pointless waste of time. Four isn't more than a few, it's pretty much the definition of a few. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop tagging my images

my images are my work 100% stop tagging them for speedy deletion when they are not! DreamFieldArts (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2012 (EDT)

As I've indicated on your talk page, screenshots of non-free computer software and combinations of non-free images are themselves non-free and require fair-use rationales. They are not 100% your work. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok well how do you believe I should site them? DreamFieldArts (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (EDT)


hey aussielegend,could you help me take out vandalism.18:23,25 febuary 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) are you going to reply? 21:58, 25 february 2012


You coincidentally turning up at an article, just after I edited it, to make your change might make a more paranoid person think you were stalking me. Anyway, looking at Category:Lists of British television series episodes, for example, I see that # is used in a great number -- perhaps most -- such articles' tables. The admonition in MOS seems to refer to prose in its examples, not tables. So I have reverted your change. Perhaps you could try to educate, for example, those at List of Spooks episodes, which scandalously uses both № and # in its tables. Your view could be tested by debate with a larger pool of editors. Barsoomian (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Before reverting, you should always check the manual of style. MOS:HASH, which I linked to in my edit summary,[21] specifically says, "Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No."". It goes on to say "Do not use the symbol ". Examples, by their nature, always are limited in scope. For example, MOS:HASH says "An exception is issue numbers of comic books", but it says nothing of tables. Using your argument, that would indicate that tables aren't an exception. My view doesn't need to be tested by debate, The Manual of Style is quite clear and it as been discussed previously. As for educating editors at List of Spooks episodes, perhaps you could do that after viewing the MoS. If you have any problems, I can help out but it's not an article that I frequent. I should warn you that reverting simply to prove a point is disruptive. Try discussing things in future before you revert. As a long term editor you should realise that's expected of you. It doesn't sever any useful purpose not to. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course I read the MOS. Don't be patronising. MOS does not prohibit use of #. It only gives examples of prose where it should be avoided. And many, many tables use it all over WP. If you ignore all the other articles that do exactly the same, while forcing it on an article I edit that you have never touched before, minutes after having an unrelated dispute with me, it's clear what your motive is. And your accusations of being "disruptive" are obnoxious, untrue and offensive. Barsoomian (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If you're reading the MoS then you don't appear to be understanding it, which historically has been the case. That something may be used somewhere doesn't mean it's correct to do so. There are plenty of cases where incorrect practices are evident in numerous articles. You're the only person who has ever had an issue with not using "#" once presented with MOS:HASH. Why do you prefer "#" over "No." given the obvious preference for the latter in the MoS? Your paranoia regarding this is amazing. I actually turned up at that article because of this edit, which did not revert vandalism. I was wondering what other similar reversions the editor had made. You had nothing to do with it. Sorry to disappoint you. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edit history:

21:45, 25 February 2012 (diff | hist) List of The Almighty Johnsons episodes ? (MOS:HASH) 
21:39, 25 February 2012 (diff | hist) List of Primeval episodes ? ((null edit) ...That's why the general refs are in the references section

You expect anyone to believe it was just a coincidence you turned up at an article I had just edited, reverted my work, 6 minutes after reverting my edit in Primeval? It's not actually wrong to check through another editor's edits for irregularities, I do it myself when a spammer turns up. But it's absurd for you to pretend that isn't what you were doing. As for "You're the only person who has ever had an issue": Sorry not to be so easily intimidated. Again, I refer you to the hundreds of articles that ignore your rule. For a start: Eight out of 20 shows in Lists of British television series episodes, starting with "A" use the # :

Also, if it is purely a content issue, prove it by taking on the many, many other articles that use exactly the same convention. Preferably an actively edited one like List of Game of Thrones episodes, List of Modern Family episodes, etc. Again, you don't have to. But otherwise it's clear you are targeting "articles edited by Barsoomian", and not "edits that defy MOS".

I cannot find any explanation or justification of this part of MOS. The Talk archives are voluminous and poorly organised. However, see [22] which seems to be when this guideline was proposed. There were plenty of exceptions mentioned. I do not know how that ended up as simply "avoid", nevertheless, your hardline prohibition is not supported by the discussion there.

But, to end on a happy note, you win, thanks to another old enemy turning up an an article he's never edited before to revert me with snarky comments. That Big Bang show must be popular. Congratulations. Barsoomian (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but this is a discussion that would seem to be better suited at the article discussion page, where other contributors could weigh in on the topic. I reverted Barsoomian for failing to initiate dialogue in what was clearly an issue in dispute. Revert-warring is never the answer. Indeed, it almost always is the source of the problem. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you two will be very happy together. You have so much in common. Barsoomian (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Look, there's no need to be snide. Just use the discussion page instead of edit-warring. It's not really that difficult a request to fulfill, now is it? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
You are repeatedly breaking the interaction ban we agreed to. Barsoomian (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


should i split those pages up?--Walter55024 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this was discussed on the talk page and consensus was not to split at this time. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
well theres another split i am thinking about spliting shake it up seasons 1 and 2.--Walter55024 (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Please don't split any articles until you know how to do it properly. It pays to check the talk pages before even considering splitting. It was only in December that it was agreed not to split that article either. Somebody tried to split it a few days ago and the changes were reverted. Splitting articles is not for beginners. Try some general editing first. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

what should i try?--Walter55024 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


Don't give me any more of your pompous warnings. If you have a real complaint, make it at an appropriate noticeboard. I don't accept your authority to give me instructions in anything. Barsoomian (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you fail to respond to polite requests, you will receive appropriate warnings when you deliberately breach Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you don't like it, don't break any rules. It's really that simple. Of course I will take matters to the appropriate noticeboard if necessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
If you feel that Barsoomian is offering you no other choice (and, via his prickly behavior, I am seeing those choices evaporate), go ahead and file. I think the point that is obvious is that he's going to eventually piss off enough people to be shown the door. Several times. Who needs that sort of drama? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dingo Taxobox

Hello, AussieLegend! I'm bringing this to your attention because I see that you made an edit to this article relatively recently.[23] I came across this article by random, and saw there was no taxobox. I then found this article, so I copied the taxobox from there and inserted it at the dingo article. It was reverted by two different editors, one who removed the taxobox from the dingo article just a couple of days ago, and the other who created the C. lupus dingo article. It turns out that this taxobox was originally on the dingo article, was copied over to the other article, and now these two want the taxobox removed from the dingo article. Confusing, isn't it? I don't think these two are correct in removing a taxobox that has been on the dingo article since 2003 for their relatively recently created article - what say you? Doc talk 19:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments

Hello, you are welcome to contribute to the following page.

WP:Requests for comment/TBrandley


Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Castle split, yet again

Hey, Aussie! We've got yet another newish editor splitting off Castle seasons into separate episodes. I reverted after he split season one, and added a note to his talk page, but thought a heads up to you might not be a bad idea. Lemmings!! --Drmargi (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 mythbusters

you wrote "leave field empty until season is finished." when pages such as Big Bang Theory have "present" please explain your reasoning. DreamFieldArts 15:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The convention, even if it's not followed at some pages, is not to include present in season articles. Unlike {{Infobox television}}, which specifies use of present while the series is airing, or an end date when the series has ended, {{Infobox television season}} only specifies use of {{End date}} in the "|last_aired=" field. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok then, how about the number of episodes as i put<--more to be added once aired--> DreamFieldArts 15:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, {{Infobox television}} specifies that "|num_episodes=" should be the number of episodes released (ie aired), while {{Infobox television season}} doesn't specifiy at all. By convention, the number is the total number of episodes in the season, which we don't know until the season has finished. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok I guess people don't follow the format or what??? But why did you delete, "No word yet on whether or not Discovery will include a segment on the accident." As that is important information about the topic, and in the reference. DreamFieldArts 15:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
As I indicated in the edit summary,[24] we don't include statements that can become quickly dated. (see WP:DATED) If we don't know whether it will happen, we don't say it. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)'
I understand that...but the information is important to the incident. DreamFieldArts 16:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
If the incident is shown, so be it, but we don't include speculative content, even if sourced. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Say what?

As per your edit summary, how is an archive box redundant with a talk page header? They do two completely different things. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated in the edit, the functionality of {{Archive box}} is included in {{talk header}}. {{Talk header}} even includes an archive search function, as you can see in the example below.
--AussieLegend (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I had looked, but had not seen. Mea culpa. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


I put my own imput to this — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The new iPad

is there a way we can move iPad (3rd generation) to "The new iPad"? DreamFieldArts 02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


I've spent my whole career calling people who use disability as insults, but I have to say, I'm as close as I've ever been to using DO WE HAVE A LEARNING DISABILITY? as an edit summary with all the Castle copyvios. I finally warned on culprit who's stopped for a bit -- bet it won't be long. Sigh... --Drmargi (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The number of people editing Wikipedia who seem to be able to write, but not read, amazes me. Some of the errors are so blatantly obvious that it seems impossible that they were made. This is typical. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to add those copyvio warnings to articles after a succession of copyvio reversions. It just shouldn't happen. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes, that one makes me fairly nuts, as does the view that television articles should only reflect the present, held by editors who clearly do not understand conceptually what an encyclopedic article on a show is all about. Check out what greeted me this morning [25] written by someone who has no edits to the article, and is probably a sock him/herself. I'll see how this scans over the next day or two; I think it's just a loudmouth blowing off steam, but if it gets to be an issue, I might e-mail you for a bit of advise if that's OK. --Drmargi (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The rant by the IP constitutes a personal attack, so I've removed it. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it might, but I'm never comfortable removing them myself. The idiotic part is that I seldom edit that article. I'll go remove my response. --Drmargi (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Since the end of January you've only edited the article twice. That made it clear that it was a personal attack. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That infrequently? I knew it wasn't often, just when the in-universe content gets out of hand. New pet edit to add to our list: people who change access dates to the present year. There's some guy on White Collar's episode pages Kevinbrogers has been battle for ages who changes the access dates for sources to the current year, along with the dates renewals were announced. I think Kevin's going to need a rubber room at this rate. --Drmargi (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations - Big Bang

I didn't remove anything. Go to the first page of the show and fix the closing bracket on a reference. I tried but can't get my computer to work propery. A user by the name of ShadowMarioBoy has vandalized the page, twice, that I know of. (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The diffs that I provided on your talk page clearly show that you removed the content from the citation.[26][27] --AussieLegend (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what "diffs" mean and all I did was fix what that other user did. Why would I remove lists of episodes??????? (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you removed lists of episodes. You removed the name of the author of the citation and the date of the source. The diffs (short for differences) are a record of your edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Per Penny in the Robotic Manipulation: I, myself, grew up in Nebraska. Small town, outside of Omaha. Yeah, a nice place, mostly family farms, a few meth labs.

She came from the area outside of Omaha. Please change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardy1956 (talkcontribs) 02:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not without a citation, which I don't have time to get right now. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

J. G. Quintel article removal of reference

Hello, AussieLegend! I recently improved the J. G. Quintel article with a variety of source information. Your edit here (and a few others) deleted the reference linking the November 16, 2010 interview of J. G. Quintel by from seven place in the article, reasoning that is not a reliable source per the Reliable sources/Noticeboard post I fixed two of the uses to the correct source.[28] However, for the remaining five, use of the interview to support the information is different from the situations listed at that July 2011 reliable sources noticeboard link. Would you please reconsider the removing of the Nick and More! interview reference. Thanks! -- JeffreyBillings (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A source can't be partly reliable. is hosted by,[29] which is a fansite.[30] Neither meet the reuirements of a reliable source and we don't make exceptions. You need to find a better source. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

NCIS: Los Angeles

I'm sorry for 'copyrighting' something. I don't understand how i'm doing that though even if i'm referring to the site and someone still removes it!I'm trying to help! kinda rude imo. I'll just stop helping out so i'm not copyrighting anything. NightSkyBlueDays (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What you added was copied from another site, which is not allowed unless there is a clear notice from the site that permits copying of the content. Content added here really needs to be written in your own words. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


Hope you don't mind me correcting your spelling here but your edit summary was just too tempting. ClaretAsh 06:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ommission of the letter "u" was deliberate, as an "homage" to the person who spelled "honour" incorrectly. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Thanks

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your contributions to "Pilot" (The Playboy Club), which has fairly recently achieved WP:GA status.

Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Pilot (The Playboy Club) to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


I see our pal NCISfan2 is giving you a few new headaches. Here's something interesting I found by sheer dumb luck: it looks like he's a sock of User:WBJB03 and User:WBJB003. I've dropped a message on MuZeMike's talk page with evidence I gathered since he blocked the original sock you reported [31], and wanted you to be aware of what I'd found before I head for SPI, since you did the original report and are being hassled now. --Drmargi (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Things are a lot clearer now. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It does make a lot more sense, doesn't it? I'm going to wait to hear from MuZemike before I reopen the SPI, then will alert you when I do. Another admin who just dealt with him read my notes, and said the cast is strong, so we should bag and tag this critter soon, with a bit of luck. --Drmargi (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit was especially interesting, as is this one. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes. And this is interesting as well: [32]. I've accumulated quite a bit just from his talk page in my sandbox toward whatever conflict resolution worked, and left a message for User:DoriSmith, since she's been dealing with him recently. I'd just started reviewing his edit history when I found the blue-ray edit that made me suspect he's a sock. And did you see the Bureaucrats Noticeboard request that they remove your admin powers this morning? Here's where Floquenbeam removes it: [33]. It just gets weirder and weirder. --Drmargi (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a laugh at the WP:BN post. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm treasuring the ones where he informed the admins to unblock someone. Have you seen them? [34] We shouldn't laugh, but the sheer brass is stunning. He's running around helping others like an expert, then begging John of Reading and Crazycomputers to do all sorts of stuff on his talk page. They were as patient as they could be, but finally reached their limit. --Drmargi (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but it's so easy to laugh. He's been working so hard to make his user pages pretty (have you seen how many subpages he has?) but for some reason he made an edit that has now resulted in this. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, the irony! I'll give the previous blocking admin until mid-day tomorrow to respond, then I think I'll reopen the SPI. I think he's aware we're watching him, so I don't want to linger too long. --Drmargi (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SPI is open here: [35]. --Drmargi (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And in record time, MuZemike blocked him. He never responded to my posting on his talk page, but I'm assuming he needed the SPI to act. --Drmargi (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
MuZemike has also deleted most of the 4 billion subpages that NCISfan2 created. I've tagged the rest for CSD and cleaned his talk page a bit. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't even going to go there with the sub-pages; nice job! They're all red links now, so someone got out a good broom right quickly. The irony is that his love of userboxes was his final undoing -- if you aren't a sock who's previously been blocked, why would you create a box saying you hate being blocked? --Drmargi (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
He's still editing his talk page like nothing happened? Seriously? I get that he has to have access to potentially appeal the block, but come on! (/vent) --Drmargi (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
He clearly doesn't get the reason he was blocked. He had the audacity to criticise Wikipedians for not following the rules when he hasn't himself. Unfortunately that's the case with most troublemakers, like the one that's started wikihounding me because I took exception to him expanding an inappropriate gallery, changing valid category names to invalid ones and adding a hatnote to an article that doesn't exist. NCISfan2 is likely to continue pointlessly editing his talk page until his ability to access that is removed although at least if he's there he isn't creating another sockpuppet account. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Either that, or he's oblivious to the block, full stop, though darned if I can figure how he would be. Can he even appeal a block if he's a sock? I wouldn't think so, so why keep the talk page active? (Head scratch) But good point about sockpuppets. All the same, I'll be keeping an eye on his favorite haunts for a while, since he turned right around and socked in a matter of a weekend the last time he was blocked. --Drmargi (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, so much for the talk page. I'll be interested in what you think of the two half-baked attempts at block appeals. This is a spoiled little boy who's used to saying an unfelt "sorry" (imagine that said in a baby-ish tone) and being forgiven with no consequences. --Drmargi (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)