User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Apple media events merge compromise idea

Greetings! First, let me apologize for having gotten a bit heated with you in the above-referenced discussion. I hope you'll understand that from my perspective, that is the perspective of someone who is literally a student of the industry, this is a binary question of right/wrong and I was getting frustrated at what I perceive to be a simple "wrong." That is not an excuse for writing several of the more untoward things I wrote in the discussion, but I hope it helps explain it a bit. Now. I looked at a new comment in the discussion last night and it occurred to me that the real issue here is that there are two things under discussion: whether it is appropriate to merge the content of the articles, and whether the "advertising" article is an appropriate umbrella for that content. As I think I've made a bit clear, I oppose the latter (have you noticed?). That said, I enthusiastically support merging the content of the two articles. I think having separate articles for each individual facet of Apple's promotional efforts is more than a little silly, and is plainly counterproductive for the reader. It's inefficient.

To that end, I've proposed a compromise in the above discussion, which I'm curious to hear your thoughts on. If you oppose it, that is fine -- I'm trying to step back from any real debate in the discussion because it's obvious I lose my cool too quickly with this topic. I think it's a fair compromise though. I'm essentially proposing merging the two articles under a new title that more properly reflects Apple's PR and advertising efforts as distinct but equal and related parts of their overall promotional strategy. This new article could, at some point, be expanded to cover Apple's marketing efforts in general (which I think would make for an outstanding article, but that's an aside). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Incompetence of the others

The other users seem to be incapable of telling wether or not a character appears in an episode of a Disney show. As one one of the characters. Emma Ross, didn't appear in 2 episodes, while per users incorrectly think that she did appear in those two episodes. WikiSpector (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This so-called incompetence is better classified as deliberate vandalism by an roving IP with a history of corrupting factual information in articles usually by inverting meanings of statements. See Special:Contributions/63.226.208.237, Special:Contributions/63.226.218.248 and Special:Contributions/63.226.209.26. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

He's baaaaack!

Guess what favorite friend is back, and sussed by another user: [1]? --Drmargi (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

NCIS: Los Angeles

My apologies, again. I thought i wasn't doing anything bad since I hid them and was going to refer to the sources afterwards, again sorry. Also, i want to let you know that i added the rankings of Season 3 of the night in the Canada one, i used the same websites listed as references and just added them then.

NightSkyBlueDays (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Check me on something

I know, you're having a shoulder-sagging response that I'm back, but would you do me a small favor? I've gotten caught up in a rather, uh, lively and involved discussion in an article about tea, that started as a simple issue of whether a source for a statement was reliable and has turned into a long-winded mass of misdirections and diversionary arguments, with lashings of making and taking personal for good measure. What a mess. But that's peripheral to the help I need. One editor has approached another about returning the discussion with the following talk page post. Does that rise to the level of either canvassing or meatpuppetry? I'm a little fuzzy on both, and frankly, so annoyed with the whole situation, I'm not sure what to think. Would you mind taking a peek and giving me your opinion? Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Engaging the ohere editor in the way that he did seems like canvassing to me. I was aware of this discussion, as your talk page is on my watchlist, so I'll keep a closer eye on it. And no, there was no shoulder-sagging response at all, not even close to it. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It certainly struck me as doing so, but I wasn't sure it would be acceptable to actually use the term, should it come to that. And it may, I fear. The whole problem arose when a self-described, and somewhat facetious, expert on American manners was used as the source for an edit declaring the American use of high tea to replace afternoon tea incorrect and thereby unscrupulous misrepresentation by some tea shops. The edit and source then go on to put forth some nonsense about Americans linking high tea to high society, an entirely suppositional explanation for why we "confuse" the two terms. I imagine you're aware that here in the US, we have no meal equivalent to what working-class Brits would call their tea (use of high now long gone in ordinary usage.) We have supper, an early-evening or very late-evening light meal, or dinner. What the British call afternoon tea is still served as a special occasion meal in upmarket hotels and small tea rooms, although the latter are generally served much more in the style of an American little girl's tea party (hats, teddy bears, etc.) than in the fashion of a small English tearoom in the shires, and may be called afternoon tea or high tea depending on the individual venue. Therein lies the problem, and the sourcing issue. It should have been a fairly easily resolved matter to determine that an expert on behavior at a meal is not an expert on the meal itself; it's like saying an mechanic is an expert on automotive design because he fixes the damned things. Unfortunately, it's devolved into a chaotic discussion between another editor and myself, who edit the article with some regularity (the other more than me), and three editors whose total editorial contribution to the article could be counted on your fingers and toes. Leaving aside the whole Wikipedia philosophy about who can edit, there still is a question about commitment to an article versus commitment to the issue argued on a talk page, which looms here. Then into the mix comes an edit who is supposedly retired, and whose periodic incivility and style of argumentation makes any forward progress all but impossible.
I really appreciate the quick reality check on the meatpuppet/canvassing issue. It struck me as inappropriate behavior, no question, but I wasn't sure just how to describe it accurately or whether it rose to the Wikipedia standard. That's why I always appreciate your feedback and your honesty -- and I'm very relieved I don't cause your shoulders to sag! Cheers, mate! --Drmargi (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Heads up!

I just undid and redirected the season articles for The Glades (TV series), which had not been discussed, and had no content save an overly-detailed ratings table. I predict a fight from the season article for their own sake set. Sigh...

And a happy Easter to you! --Drmargi (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What a lot of editors seem to forget is that the main episode list isn't just restricted to lists of episodes. Content such as was in this version of The Glades (season 1) can be included in the list article. In such cases the ratings tables are normally included at the end of the article. "List of foo episodes" articles are really no diferent to, say "list of foo characters" articles. Once there is sufficient content to justify a split based on article size, then we can split, but splitting just to add a couple of lines on production and DVD releases isn't appropriate.
Happy Easter. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed 110%. Worse, the S2 article has even less content than the S1 article. I think this one was created by one of the usual suspects who can hardly wait for an opportunity to create the season articles, with no thought for whether they're needed. What's more, I don't see the point of these over-elaborate ratings table. How many viewers are really able to interpret, much less derive meaning from these tables? They strike me as taking up too much space for the information they provide. Ditto the over-long tables of international broadcasters. Tangentally, I had to laugh recently. Someone posted on the talk page for List of The Closer episodes that it should be split. I replied asking why, and what content not in the main article they would add. Silence. They don't know; they just do it because someone else has elsewhere, like lemmings. Three cheers for editors like you who stop and think, and like Kevin Rogers, who works hard to build meaningful season articles for Burn Notice. He's the exception that proves the rule. (Oh, and the tea discussion wears on after a brief moratorium. It's exhausting trying to fight a battle of wits with an un-armed editor.) --Drmargi (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
There's no need for the ratings table at all. The 18-49 share column is the only content that isn't already in the episode table and could easily be incorporated if necessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, agreed. And thus, we bid farewell to that argument for the season articles. No fuss yet, but there will be. --Drmargi (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

NCIS: LA revert

Short notice: I undid your recent revert on NCIS: Los Angeles. I think you confused the abbreviations there, since the abbreviation "OSP" has been used multiple times to shorten the name "Office of Special Projects", which is the official name of the LA division (which explains why "NCIS: OSP" was one of the names considered for the show). Hetty is the manager of the whole division so "OSP manager" makes more sense than "OPS manager" (that would be "Ops manager" anyway). Regards SoWhy 21:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't confuse the abbreviations at all:
  • OSP is Office of Special Projects
  • OPS (which is what was in the article) is OPerationS
Hetty's role as Operations Manager is well established in the series. She replaced Lara Macy in that role from the first episode and was herself replaced in the role by Lauren Hunter for a short time. OSP is redundant as everyone in the team is "OSP" something or other. "OPS" is correct, "Ops" is not. OSP is a military organisation and the military uses upprecase acronyms. Using lowercase is a civvy thing. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Preview?

This is regarding the edit you made here. Shouldn't we just make the "preview" episode of Fish Hooks episode 1 instead of 0? All other shows that were a "sneak preview" all start with episode 1.

Also "We've Got Fish Spirit, Parts I & II" and "Fish School Musical, Parts 1 & 2" should be listed as 33 & 37 respectively and they aired as just one continuous episode. - Alec2011 (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with what you've suggested. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I've made the changes. - Alec2011 (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at GoingBatty's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hell Gate Bridge

Please leave it linked. - Denimadept (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? --AussieLegend (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I saw an IP having linked Hell Gate Bridge in the Sydney Harbor Bridge article, and given the apparent edit warring I thought I saw there, before really investigating, I thought you were changing it to Hell Gate. Nevermind, sir. - Denimadept (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

About me

I have taken it upon myself to completely re-define wikipedia's standards for vandalism and aggressively edit pages without even bothering to consult wikipedia's policy. People like me have absolutely no negative impact on this site, because we are just trying to balance out all the stupid people. I do this because I am so smart! That and I have nothing better to do....

D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.30.92 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Ummmm, OK..... But please don't make edits like this again. Had you done some research you would have found that the statement is more than three months out of date and no longer valid as the season is over and the boat has been repaired. The IP who added the content has never returned to the article, despite having made 13 edits since then, so the likelihood of ever getting a citation for the claim is zero. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Do you think it's time to wrap up this discussion? I don't know if we need an administrator to close it. – Confession0791 talk 16:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

After 41,800 words from a limited number of editors, yes, I do think it's time to wrap it up. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

File:FriendsLogo.jpg

This image is now undeleted and must be considered ineligible due to the other image: File:The Friends Stage cropped.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:REFUND#File:FriendsLogo.jpg, if this image is not included in one article within five days after this message, it may be deleted again. I wonder if you can transfer this image to Commons. --George Ho (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Done. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The NOT Reliable Source

It's not fair that the Wikia sources cannot be used on Wikipedia when they're both the same sources, but Wikia gets their information before Wikipedia does and I use it! If I can't use Wikia, then where can I find other sources besides Zap2it, FutonCritic, MSN, TVGuide, or any other non-spammed Wikipedia sources? Wikia should be a reliable source because it isn't in the spam filter of sources!! Please talk to me about this because I'm not feeling Wikipedia because of copyright or unreliable sources. ~ RomeAntic14 22:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Open wikis are not classed as reliable sources because anyone can edit them. Please read WP:IRS for more information. Of course, that was not the main reason I reverted your edits. What you posted was copied verbatim from other sources, including the press releases and therefore constitutes a copyright violation. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Newcastle Airport (Williamtown)

I noticed this and you could have the feet only with a conversion to metres. However, why would you want to do that given that the source uses metres? As far as I know only Canada and the US give runway lengths in feet and everybody else uses metres. Although, just to make it confusing most countries use feet for airport elevations. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The RAAF, who owns the runway, still gives the distances in feet; the only reason for doing so in the article on the civilian side of the runway is really consistency. I'm a bit surprised about the ASA source. When I saw the change from north to northeast I was shocked. That puts "Newcastle" about 1,100m from the centre of Warabrook,[2] which is just under 7.4km from the official centre of Newcastle.[3][4]
The distances from a given community can be odd for several countries. Some define where in the community they are measuring from, a railway station, city hall, church, but others countries don't seem to be measured from any particular place. It's possible that the distances were set by someone working in a city somewhere else, in your case Canberra and in ours Ottawa, to come up with them. I had it wrong it should have been north northeast rather than northest. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Friends episodes

As I've explained to Drovethrughosts, the table style has been discussed here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1. Reviewers have come to a conclusion that WP:TRANSCLUSION should be discouraged, per WP:BOLD and MOS:DTT. Feel free to add your two cents on the matter or make a comment regarding the list there. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Done! --AussieLegend (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
You have a couple of replies waiting regarding the template's inexcusable inability to meet WP:ACCESS. Would love to hear your two cents on that nugget. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I was already on it. I've posted quite a bit so far but I'm not Superman. Perhaps you could try fixing the template, since you seem to know the exact problems and have the ability to edit it. I'm not an admin so I have no ability to fix the template, which is protected. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Not a chance. It needs consensus to be changed, as you are well aware, and that's not forthcoming because the precious template has been created, used, and then never questioned. No-one cares about it. It's fallen into disrepair and FLC have pointed it out and avoided it like the plague because it's inadequate for our standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
So you just give up? And you had the hide to comment about "people who bother to care". If you know the specific problems you could always fix the template in a sandbox and then suggest those edits. But if you don't care..... --AussieLegend (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Eh? Hide what? Where did I do that? I don't need to fix the problems, we have a perfectly legitimate solution. You're the one complaining about the solution. If you wish to solve your perceived problem, then that's down to you. Nothing in WIAFL says we have to use the bog-awful templates you seem so keen to promote. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm not an expert in the template, it seems pretty easily fixable. The DTT stuff (scope="col") and captions is handled within the table markup anyway and not the template. The bold episode titles should be removed. I also took out the F2F2F2 shading of the row that handles the episode numbers, titles, director, etc that occurs when there is a summary because the scope attribute turns the relevant cell that colour, and it's no good when they're all automatically shaded like that. Check out Template:Episode list/sandbox and Template:Episode list/testcases. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Nice work Matthew. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm It seems that even though http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H63.html says to put "scope='row'" into the <td> html tags (<td scope=row>) and I did that to Template:Episode list/sandbox in the line
<td scope="row" class="summary" style="text-align: left;">{{#if:{{{Title|}}}|"{{{Title}}}"}}{{{RTitle|}}} {{#if:{{{AltTitle|}}}|<br />"{{{AltTitle}}}"}}</td>
that bit hasn't worked at least visually (the cell for the episode title is still white). I don't know whether JAWS can tell the difference as I don't have the software. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I just tried moving the row scope to the first column (the episode number) but there was still no change, at least not visually. WP:DTT doesn't explicitly say there has to be a row scope though... Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I've done a bit of testing and, as far as I can determine, the only difference in your version is the removal of the shading of the row that handles the episode numbers, titles, director, etc. That's really exceptionally minor and, if it achieves compliance is something we just have to live with. If |LineColor= is set the difference between episode entries is still blatantly clear. Transclusion seems to work still, although the shading for |EvenRowColor= in Template:Episode list/sublist may have to be removed. Is it really that simple? If so, good work. Regardless, thanks for your efforts. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Col scopes are important, row scopes less so if it's clear what in each row is the most pertinent data object. These templates are a bit complex when it comes to helping that sort of thing become obvious to screen readers. Once again I'd suggest we have a quick chat with User:RexxS who has been invaluable to the FLC project in promoting ACCESSible data tables. Could just be that everything's good now, but as Matthew said, without JAWS etc, it's difficult to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, there were other subtle changes aside from the shading. From the template I removed the bolding, added "scope='row'" to the < td > html code and removed the shading. The rest is handled in the table headers markup on the actual article ({{episode list}} isn't a table, you still have to code one in the articles). The main difference there that is quite obvious is the table "title" but again there are some other subtle changes. Out of all that I did only one, the "scope='row'", doesn't appear to work but like The Rambling Man said, row scope is less important.
We could probably even leave the F2F2F2 shading. Scope="col" has two effects. One for the screenreaders (which quite honestly, I don't understand any of it, but accept that it has to be done), the other is visual and shades the table cells. Having the cells shaded by the {{episode list}} doesn't stop the scope from working for screenreaders, but obviously it does visually.
Admittedly I've done no testing other than Template:Episode list/testcases. I don't know how it will work when it's used in season pages and transcluded to a different page, but I think it will be okay. Testing probably also needs to be carried out with Template:Episode list/sublist before we implement anything. And for the record, I for one have always hated |EvenRowColor= and the zebra look, the Skittlepedia look, and anything else where colour is used to jazz stuff up, supposedly make thing easier to read, and anything else where colour isn't actually necessary or relevant to the information. So if that has to go, good! Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
"One for the screenreaders (which quite honestly, I don't understand any of it, but accept that it has to be done)" - I've had some exposure to screenreaders as I'm the system administrator at a local school where we've had legally blind children, but I don't profess to understand it any better than you do. However, because of my position I was able to get a copy of Jaws 13.0 (talk about a "bog-awful" application!) and installed it on my test PC. I didn't hear any difference in articles using the standard {{Episode list}} and those with the modified template. Then I tried one with all the scopes in the right places (Lemonade 51's version of List of Friends episodes, which was rebuilt in accordance with WP:DTT) and, surprise surprise, it sounded exactly the same. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
For "hide", read "audacity", and you said it here.
"You're the one complaining about the solution." - That's because it's a stop-gap measure at best. Every time a TV article comes up for nomination it has to be re-written. After the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986 they didn't just replace the o-rings in each solid rocket booster, which is what your solution is equivalent to doing, they forced a redesign of the joints in the booster. The root cause was fixed, rather than the effect.
"If you wish to solve your perceived problem" - It's not my perceived problem. You're the one who seems to know about it and has issue with it, so it's your problem.
"the bog-awful templates" - The template is certainly not "bog-awful". It serves a useful purpose and has done so for six years, making work easy for many editors, providing a consistent layout for episode lists across thousands of articles. You may not like these templates, but they're not going away. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's awfully quiet over at WP:TV, where are all those caring editors? As Lemonade51 says there, the precedent was set some while back, no-one at the TV project seems to care. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they're all making apparently useless changes to articles so they'll comply. As I've pointed out there, neither of the articles cited set a precedent as neither used {{Episode list}} or transcluded content before their nominations. They both used custom tables. Neither would meet the criteria if nominated today. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone said the changes were useless, quite the opposite, they provide an accessible table so more readers can enjoy the Wikipedia experience. The TV project appear not to give two hoots which is a real shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Did you follow the link I provided? Based on my experience using Jaws the changes do not provide an enjoyable Wikipedia experience. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well your personal experience is noted, but irrelevant when we have requirements to meet the accessibility requirements of MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Well no, it's not irrelevant as the testing I've done indicates the template provides exactly the same results as a custom table. Therefore it would seem to comply with the spirit of the requirements. You've said you don't know how to fix the template,[5] and there has been no explanation as to how exactly the template doesn't comply. Matthewedwards has said "the DTT stuff (scope="col") and captions is handled within the table markup anyway and not the template" and he has indicated that he's made required changes to the template. Any further opposition seems a case of "I don't like it". Unless, of course, you can explain how the template doesn't comply. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Well ideally it needs to implement scope="row" as well. Interesting that despite the use of the template, editors still need to understand how to write markup for tables, as illustrated in the template instructions. Perhaps editors are more competent than you would have us believe! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Matthewedwards has included scope="row" in the template. Editors only need to write markup for column headers and even in featured lists like those mentioned at WT:TV, this isn't compliant. Neither comply with MOS:HASH either. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Well we're getting somewhere then! FLs mentioned at WP:TV were probably promoted before we insisted on complete MOS compliance. And yes, we shouldn't be using # either. That's a problem with many template instructions, guidance can be outdated or simply incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey, despite our clearly contrary positions, I really do appreciate your ongoing efforts to resolve this issue (and the peripheral ones). Hope, despite our differences, we can continue to positively debate this and come to a positive conclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You may have been "disgusted" by our recommendation to avoid the use of the transclusion, but now because of the transclusion, the list has MOS failures, isn't formatted elegantly and has missing information. Very disappointing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Most articles have MOS failures, even featured articles, there's nothing wrong with the formatting and, as for the missing information, what information is that? It reflects what is in the season articles, which is not what it did when it had the silly custom tables in it. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
"Most articles have MOS failures" (a) featured ones shouldn't (b) even if they do, doesn't make it right. A production code has gone missing and the tabular format is all over the place from section to section. Not to mention the odd grey backgrounds gone missing. What makes a plain wikitable "silly custom"? The evidence is clear, transcluding crap results in crap articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's OK for featured lists to have MOS failures, why should this article be held to a higher standard when it's not a featured article? The missing prod code has been restored, it's a minor fix that can happen even to a featured article, any inconsistencies in column widths can easily be fixed and, in any case don't affect readability of the date. The screenreader has no problem interpreting the data. I don't see a problem with the odd grey background not being there. It shouldn't be there anyway, any more than episode titles being bolded. The wikitables are silly because they're not needed. Transclusion serves the same purpose without adding 58kb of code. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
You do also realise that, for instance, Friends (season 10) is actually internally inconsistent don't you? The ratings tables lists both parts of the two-parter separately (with (1) and (2) in the titles) while the episode summary table doesn't? (and that the "Special No." should be "Special no." as there's no reason to capitalise No. here, it's not the start of a sentence or a proper noun after all). The more you look, the worse these transclusions get... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
All of the season articles need a clean-up. I started by updating all of the infoboxes but haven't gotten much further than that because of this silly discussion. Personally, I don't see the point in nominating episode lists that have been split into season articles without nominating the season articles too, as they are all intimately related because of the way that the TV project prefers to split articles. Nominating the full episode list is like nominating only the lead section of a normal article. That's why I'm keen to get the template fixed. Regarding "no.", MOS:HASH says to use "No.". --AussieLegend (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
That's why the seasons list shouldn't transclude rubbish. It's more than reasonable for it to be a stand alone table with simple markup since we're not interested in the summaries, we're only interested in the stable, static facts like production code (one of which is still missing due to the "helpful" edits). Until all the season articles meet MOS and are internally consistent, I can't see how you can demand their transclusion anywhere else, it's extraordinary. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Friends episodes". Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've left some comments there. And at Template talk:Episode list#So far/What now? Best, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
You have replies at my talk page. If you do not want to read further, as I said before, you may present your own comments at the "dispute resolution noticeboard". --George Ho (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Source for Thomas & Friends

http://www.sodor-island.net/storytellers.html Just found some more information for the Thomas & Friends page. This is a source and this link is not a wiki website page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshowandkane64 (talkcontribs) 23:26, 5 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Sodor-island.net identifies itself as "A Thomas Fan Site". Fansites are largely not acceptable as sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, there is a mistake I found in the storyteller list with Alec Baldwin. At the end of the sentence there seems to be two dots instead of one for the period. Can you fix that mistake please. Marionluigi49 19:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marionluigi49 (talkcontribs)

Kangaroo Point

Hello, I did prod this article, but someone put their hand up and turned it into something sensible and I am now about to move it to where it belongs, hence my revert Regards Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Kangaroo Point is only a point of land in the suburb of Brooklyn that is not notable. Its only claim to fame appears to be that it's at one end of a bridge, although it's debatable as to whether the end of the bridge is actually on the point, since topographic maps 9130 Sydney and 91304N Cowan show the bridge as actually being on the rising ground behind the point, not on the point itself. It isn't any more notable than Mooney Mooney Point, or the other 7 Kangaroo Points in NSW, and doesn't warrant a separate article. It's adequately covered in the suburb article. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary...

...lol Seriously though, that info might find a better home in Demographics of Sydney. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello AussieLegend thank you for your message, just letting you know the reason why that I was adding the "Cancelled Episode" list on the Thomas and Friends series 2 page. Because It's kinda important because "The Missing Coach" was the episode that got cancelled in season 2. That's all, thank you! Trainsareawesome1225 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Refunded article

Hi Aussie, just an FYI I just refunded Dai Le after a request on my talk page by the creator--Jac16888 Talk 09:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The article is now at AfD. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jessie

Is this a reliable source? http://www.disneydreaming.com/2012/05/08/the-jessie-disney-channel-original-movie-will-film-this-summer/ Bow-bb (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Disney Dreaming claims to be a fan site,[6] so I'd say no. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Howard Joel "Fruit Loops" Wolowitz

It's official. ---88.193.111.215 (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This nutjob started a discussion on the talk page about it. Care to chip in? RAP (talk) 18:22 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your nice remark, kind sir. I am, as you may have noticed, quite persistent... ---88.193.111.215 (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 29#Friends episodes

(Reposted from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 29#Friends episodes to give you a chance to respond if you so choose. If you decide to respond, please answer there.

With all due respect, writing "I won't be posting the diffs as there is simply no need...I'm taking this page off my watchlist, so there's no point asking again." makes you look like you don't have your facts straight. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Posting the diffs is pointless, as it's not immediately obvious from the diffs alone as to what I'm referring. Instead, I posted a link to the actual conversation dealing with that matter, THREE TIMES. The discussion directly addresses the issue and is a far better guide as to what was made up. Only the most incompetent of editors would be unable to determine, from the actual conversation, what the issue was and, if they can't follow a simple conversation, they certainly would not be able to understand the diffs. Similarly, if they're unable to click on one of the three links that I've provided, they'd be unable to click on the link to the diffs. The Rambling Man knows what I'm talking about, as he is directly involved in the discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Those of us who try to help resolve disputes between editors have told you several times that we need to see diffs, not links to existing talk pages, and you are telling us that we are wrong, and that you know better than we do what we need. And you know this ... how? Have you ever tried to unravel an ongoing dispute with a history that predates your looking into it? Doesn't that seem a bit presumptuous to you? Do you even know the reason why we look at diffs instead of talk pages?
The reason is this: diffs cannot be edited and talk pages can. If I go to the page that you linked to, I have no way of knowing for sure whether you, the other party, or some random vandal made subtle changes -- and no, I am not going to look at every past version trying to find out. With a diff, I know that the person listed wrote what you claim he wrote. And the diff gives me links to what the page looked like right before and right after the edit so I can see the context.
Your refusal to play by the rules and your insistence on telling us how to do our jobs pretty much insures that the other party in the dispute will get his way. This is undesirable because you might be in the right and the other party might be in the wrong -- but we will never know because you think you know how to resolve disputes better than those with experience resolving disputes do. Actions have consequences, and your actions have the consequence of torpedoing any chance you had of getting a fair and impartial hearing. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Several times? No, not even once prior to your post here. Only The Rambling Man has insisted on seeing the diffs and he doesn't need to as he has been involved in the conversation - He's seen every diff already. In this case, yes I know better because I was actually involved in the discussion and know what went on. I can also read a page history and check to see whether anything has been altered, which is not hard to do given that the whole thing involves only 24 of the latest 27 diffs on the page. Anybody "helping" to resolve disputes should do that anyway, regardless of whether diffs have been provided because diffs can still mislead. In any case, the discussion at Talk:Friends actually has absolutely nothing to do with resolution of this "dispute" and my actions don't require a hearing of any sort. As I've already indicated (do you need the diff for that?) I have absolutely no problem with any edit that The Rambling Man has so far made to any of the articles listed as being disputed by George Ho. What do you see as the problem, what edits do you see as disputed and what pages do you think are in dispute? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I have no choice but to assume that your refusal to provide diffs when requested indicates that your "he keeps making things up" claim was a bald-faced lie. You can respond to this if you wish, but I won't read it or respond to it. Life is too short to waste on those who refuse to comply with reasonable requests for evidence that backs up their claims. WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
If you're too lazy to even do the tiniest bit of investigating, (I posted diffs more than two hours ago for example.[7]) then perhaps you shouldn't be attempting to participate in DRN discussions. You seem to be biased anyway.[8][9] You should assume good faith. Accusing people of lying is uncivil and I ask you to refrain from such conduct. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Montage image of Sydney in infobox - time to rethink

I see you have reverted my addition of comparatively pretty small montage image of Sydney in infobox today. I also noticed that some editors don't appreciate the placement of a montage image of Sydney in infobox and among them one editor has impolitely ridiculed me calling it a 'travel brochure'. You informed me today that there is a consensus of not using a montage image of Sydney in the infobox. A consensus is not unchangeable. The reason of this consensus sounds feeble and it is time to reassess it. I strongly argue for an addition of a montage image in the infobox. For instance, can you deny that a compact five-frame montage portraying five various parts of Sydney is not only a quick way to visually summarize the Sydney just like the summarized text information in the infobox, but also reveals its physical appearance to the readers? It also improves the visual information of the page. I also urge you to visit the Wikipedia pages of all major cities like London, Berlin, Rome, New York City, Tokyo, Athens etc. Those pages do contain multi-frame montage images in their respective infoboxes. Some of them are large in size too. If using a montage image is so irrelevant to the article page of a city, then why did other editors include a montage image in the pages of all those major cities? The opposition by the editors of using a montage image in Sydney page looks shamefully biased when they revert an addition of a montage image in Sydney page, although other major city pages contain montage image in infobox. Therefore, I again convene you to turn down this illogical and biased consensus of not using a montage image in infobox of Sydney page. I have also raised this matter in Sydney Talk page. You are welcome to rebut your standing there. All major city pages in Wikipedia have montage images, which suggests an implicit 'global' consensus of using montage image in a major city like Sydney too. And this implicit 'global' consensus, in my opinion, is more meaningful than having a separate 'local' consensus of not using a montage for particularly Sydney page. This particular consensus for Sydney is evidently a discriminatory policy against the standard practices found in other Wikipedia major city pages. Specially, I would like to hear your rebuttal on the use of montage images in Wikipedia city pages like London, Berlin, Rome, New York City, Tokyo, Athens. Thanks Jonah rajxei (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC

Oops!

I accidentally zapped one of your edits to The Big Bang Theory when I hit the wrong button. I fixed it but thought I'd let you know, nevertheless. Sorry! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 06:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Alpine huts

Hi Legend! Thanks for all your work in converting Alpine hut infoboxes to use Infobox mountain hut. Please be aware though that there are many, many more hut articles on de.wiki that have yet to be translated and, for us translators, the ability to use "shim templates" like Infobox Schutzhütte is a massive help because it speeds up the transfer of articles and allows us to focus on the tough bit i.e. the translating. So please let's keep it available for now. Thanks again for your diligence and hard work! --Bermicourt (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Eco-terrorism

But definition, the acts committed on Whale Wars are eco-terrorism. Your continued efforts to remove this statement violate the neutrality of Wikipedia by deliberately obscuring the facts to promote your own agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.226.67 (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The only agenda being promoted is your own. This has been discussed at length and adding unsourced statements such as you have been doing is both a violation of WP:NPOV and vandalism. If you disagree, you need to take it up on the article's talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Friends episode dispute

The content report at dispute resolution noticeboard is closed by Steven Zhang as this (amended):

Closing this one as resolved, per the comments. If this issue flares up again, I'd suggest mediation, solely as it's a location where a very long thread or slow progress isn't a major issue.

The mess is over, and... well, I hope things can be calm between you and Rambling Man. --George Ho (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Short Summary

Thank you for telling me! That's great news and thanks for the changes. I like the new format a lot (with the episode title) and such. I'm sure it took a long time and I'm sure there's some people that do not like it, but I like it. Let me know if there's something I can help test or change when it's needed or need help with a dispute. Cheers to you as well - Alec (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Episode list

Hi. I just saw your edit to NCIS episode list so I guess you know that the updates to the template have been pushed into usage. If you find any errors, let me know, and also if you can join in at Template talk:Episode list#New suggestion, that'd be great. I'm off to bed, 'night! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 07:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

On the /doc, what does "desirable" exactly mean? Surely you aren't suggesting that adding a viewers column is more important than the other optional columns. 117Avenue (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's more a case that a viewer's column should be included to provide something more than just what you can get in a TV guide, which is what you get with just the other fields. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
What I'm worried about is that people are going to see that, think the viewer column should be there, start ignoring the rules, and add unverified data. 117Avenue (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The table doesn't mandate use of the parameter, it simply says it's "desirable" and surely, if they're going to assume "desirable" means that it "should" be there, they're also going to assume that "Should include a reference" means there must be a reference, which will stop unverifiable data being included. The reality is that people ignore the rules anyway; pushing them in the right direction shouldn't be discouraged. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've now raised this at Template talk:Episode list#Viewers. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not my intention, edit conflict. 117Avenue (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Chop explained

Hi Aussie! I actually see a lot of accidental choppage like that, and it usually seems to get blamed on a mysterious happening with mobile-phone and/or Firefox edits... and seems to happen much more frequently when Wikipedia's experiencing database lag. I'm guessing that's probably what happened today. :)  -- WikHead (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happened, it was strange. I even previewed and yes, I am using Firefox. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
There's been a lot of database lag over the past two or three days... or at least I've seen it from my location, so that (along with Firefox) is probably what caused it. I guess the good part of it is that I know it happens at times, and I see you around here enough to know that you didn't do that on purpose. Perhaps one of these days I should check to see if it's ever been reported to the village pump. Have yourself a great day Aussie, and stay well! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it hit again with this edit. That edit was made immediately after I read this, which was showing as the latest revision, but it appears that 5 later edits had been made to the page,[10] although only 3 edits were lost,[11] and one of those wan't the one immediately prior to mine.[12][13] --AussieLegend (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
No database lag today at all. Perhaps you should check your internet connection? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
That's not true. I saw some Wikimedia error notices while I was making these edits only 7 1/2 hours ago and since then I've seen at least two database lag notices. A bad internet connection wouldn't explain what happened 2 hours ago. In any case, my firewall PC and my modem both say the connection has been rock solid for all that time. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
"only 7 1/2 hours ago"... Well, I've seen no database lag today at all, even with a crappy connection. Don't know what's going on with your particular edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Lucky you. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

St Johns Wood population data

G'day Aussie, Thanks for your efforts in making St Johns Wood look good. Regarding the population data for St Johns Wood, the link below verifies that the census collection district is the locality of St Johns Wood, therefore it is verifiable information and useful to include. Can it please be put back? Thanks, Ben This link shows the map: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/LocationSearch?locationLastSearchTerm=3230608&locationSearchTerm=3230608&newarea=3230608&collection=Census&period=2006&areacode=&geography=&method=Place+of+Usual+Residence&productlabel=&producttype=QuickStats&topic=&navmapdisplayed=true&javascript=true&breadcrumb=PL&topholder=92&leftholder=0&currentaction=104&action=104&textversion=false&subaction=2

This link shows the statistics: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/LocationSearch?locationLastSearchTerm=3230608&locationSearchTerm=3230608&newarea=3230608&submitbutton=View+QuickStats+%3E&mapdisplay=on&collection=Census&period=2006&areacode=3230608&geography=&method=Place+of+Usual+Residence&productlabel=&producttype=QuickStats&topic=&navmapdisplayed=true&javascript=true&breadcrumb=PL&topholder=0&leftholder=0&currentaction=104&action=401&textversion=false&subaction=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benwebboz (talkcontribs) 20:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The link clearly identifies the CCD as Ashgrove. It doesn't mention St Johns Wood at all.[14] That means it's not verifiable. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks- sorry I didn't see this reply till now. I am developing my skills so appreciate your work with me and my project. Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benwebboz (talkcontribs) 06:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Thank you for your clarifications about sourcing on the Korra episode page. I’m very new to Wikipedia, so your help is much appreciated. I hope you did not think those edits were out of bad faith or malice; I didn’t know about the site, but I really thought the information on the page was accurate (isn’t Wikipedia itself proof that that’s possible? A site can have tons of people like you who make honest contributions and still be questionable?). Anyway, I promise to do a better job in the future, I swear, thanks again! Pandakonda (talk contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Protect?

Where do I go to infinitely protect "List of Wizards of Waverly Place episodes" from ever being edited again? Just reverted some vandalsim. - Alec (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:RPP is the place, but no article is ever locked completely. At best you'll get a longer temporary protection. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The List of Hannah Montana episodes page has an "indefinite" lock on it however. - Alec (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
That was a special case involving The Verizon vandalTM, who has made thousands of edits vandalising Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:Copyright violation

Please see this revision history for this information on the summary of "Special Delivery": [15] ~ RomeAntic14 04:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This diff shows that you restored the copyright violation after it was removed. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics

First off, I'd apologise for being unsure how to use Wiki. However, your source is dated. This is Australia's position on Taiwan. http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/taiwan/taiwan_brief.html - 31st of May 2012. ABS's choice of word is controversial and there is no need to use highly sensitive words. The Australian government does not view Taiwan as a province of the PRC (People's Republic of China). You may be confused with the romanticized word 'CHINA'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AeonTW (talkcontribs) 08:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The source may be dated, but that's what the source says. If you have a newer source, then that can be used, but until then we have to follow what the source says. And please don't continue reverting. That's edit-warring, which is inappropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been very patient with you, and you can be accused of edit warring as well since I have warned you several times to not post misleading information. Even if we use your source from 2005, it does NOT say Taiwan Province is a part of the People's Republic of China. That is why I said you may be confused with the word China and PRC. ABS does not stipulate Taiwan Province is part of the people's republic as you have posted. Please check your source, read between the lines and remove MISLEADING information. Again, don't you DARE threaten me because you might complaint. I have told you and even apologised that I am not familiar with editing on wiki but I definately know more about this topic than you do. If you wish to go down the path of removing other people's equal right, then you'd better be prepared I will do the same if not more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AeonTW (talkcontribs) 00:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, I was courteous with you yet you chose to threaten me. Wiki invites people to make edits where they see the need. I saw the need, I made edits and you outright refused my opinion (as demonstrated from your response). Wiki also supports compromise, you don't. Wiki doesn't support threats, you do. Please play nice; most people have the right intent but just lack the know how in doing it on Wiki it doesn't mean their opinion or knowledge is worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AeonTW (talkcontribs) 00:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Removal of inappropriate forum type comments that have been added to an article,[16] and then restored,[17] after they have been removed by edits with an appropriate edit summary,[18][19] and a warning on your talk page,[20] is both appropriate and necessary in order to protect the article from disruptive editing. When an editor persists in adding such contents after multiple warnings, it's customary to warn the editor. Additionally, in any content dispute, we protect the status quo of the article while, hopefully, discussion ensues as per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle that we try to follow.
"Even if we use your source from 2005, it does NOT say Taiwan Province is a part of the People's Republic of China." - As I told you in the initial warning on your talk page, the source (see table 6.6 on page 48) very clearly says "China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province)". The article says " People's Republic of China (Excluding SARs and Taiwan Province". Since China says that China is "officially the People's Republic of China (PRC)", the article is merely reflecting exactly what the source says. As an encyclopaedia, we present facts neutrally, without changing them. As I suggested on your talk page, if you have a problem with the way that the ABS refers to Taiwan, you need to take it up with the ABS. If it chooses to republish the data, then we can change the article accordingly. Until then, we have to maintain a neutral point of view and present the data as originally published, as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a policy, not just a guideline.
"read between the lines" - Doing so constitutes "original research" and breaches our "No original research" policy. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Upload pictures?

Can you upload this pictures / covers: 1 and 2? I can't do it. Thanks -- LAW CSI (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, and added to the articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

New episodes of The Universe (TV series)

Hi, I'm new to editing Wikipedia and I'm not sure how to do it properly. However, in The Universe (TV series), I saw you splitted new episodes from Season 6 to Season 7. According to the [show page] and [IMDb], it listed those new episodes still in Season 6. I think these sources are more reliable than TV Guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valfazz (talkcontribs) 18:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is not regarded as a reliable source, while TV Guide is. That said, the fact that the history channel DVD clearly identifies all of these episodes, even those not aired, as being from season 6 is puzzling, as TV Guide bases its season information on press releases issued by studios, in this case the studio being History Channel. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
If TV Guide is a reliable source (which I don't know), then how did episodes 7x01 and 7x02 switch places in comparison to original air date and some other sites (which I also don't know reliable or not)?
PS: A side question, is editing this section the way to answer the talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valfazz (talkcontribs) 09:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Splitting again

The split into season articles for splitting's sake brigade are back again. So are the "let's create a fancy table for some competition show and never mind whether anyone can actually read it or if it's accurate" IP's are busy as well.

Give me strength. And how are you? --Drmargi (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine, or would be if my stalker would stop following me around. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, great. I know the recent Friends thing was tough, but a stalker? Just what you need. --Drmargi (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The Friends thing had some positive results. Common-sense won through in the end and 5,179 articles have been improved as a result. (despite efforts by some to ruin one). --AussieLegend (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that, anyway. I'm not sure I'm going to have as much luck with a pesky IP who's decide he/she will set the decor for the elimination tables across seasons of one show, and decide what does and does not go into the articles. What it is about these silly elimination shows that they bring out a cadre of IP's who care about nothing more than creating complex, highly colored tables, with no regard for accuracy, how they fit into the article, readability or a host of other encyclopedic factors. The articles all need at least a 90 day semi that will cover the duration of the current season, and I know if I go to a noticeboard, we'll be lucky to get more than a week. I'm trying to decide which admin to approach so we can take some direct action. Sorry. Venting. --Drmargi (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see you've joined the FNS fray (I wasn't hinting, but glad to have you, all the same!) Any thoughts about a good admin to contact about this? I think a 90-day semi for each of the season articles and a little enforced vacay for our pal would be ideal. What think you? --Drmargi (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

After his last edits at The Next Food Network Star (season 6), I've reported him at WP:AIV. He's had numerous warnings and requests to discuss that he has ignored. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I added a brief addendum indicating the problem runs across the seasonal articles. Hopefully that will do 'er. --Drmargi (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, bunkie, that got us nowhere. Sigh... --Drmargi (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made a last attempt to get him to discuss the edits by leaving a request on his talk page. In line with this I've requested page protection for the season 6 and 8 articles. I don't watch this program but some of the edits that he has made do seem reasonable while there are others that are dubious. A look through all of the articles shows that he has been busy at each. If page protection is granted, I suggest you take a close look at the articles and see what actually needs fixing, then fix the items individually with appropriate summaries, as that makes it easier if it does go to AN/I. It's a pain, but sometimes it's what we have to do. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Well you were a busy boy while I was earning my daily crust. That seems to have stopped her for now. Let's hope it lasts. I did some fixing already (I've just read your thoughts above), and left the "good" edits alone. There's probably more to do, but the big issues are addressed. --Drmargi (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, she's back at it. FNS yesterday, and Chopped today. She persists in mislabeling food items, misspelling names and the usual revert without edit summary drill. I've contacted the admin who responded to the RFPP (fat lot of good that does), and he's warned her, but it's had no effect. I think ANI may be on the horizon. --Drmargi (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've opened an ANI discussion at WP:ANI#Disruptive IP editor refusing to discuss edits. Feel free to weigh in. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. I need to fill in a few diffs, but the main idea is there. I'm not going to hold my breath; I find ANI pretty toothless, but would be happy to be proven wrong. --Drmargi (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And that little spectacle, my friend, is why I go straight to an admin in these cases and say ANI is toothless. That was a pathetic display by our increasingly passive team of admins. But I loved your comment about the thread head! --Drmargi (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I did go to see an admin.[21] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Well you sure did. How chickenshit is this? I do not understand why all the drama, little of which actually belonged at ANI, got immediate attention, and a legitimate problem got the brush-off. The admin I contacted was "too busy with his day job" to look into it, which would be understandable, I suppose, but he seemed to have plenty enough time for a lot of other stuff here. Frustrating! It's not all of them, of course, but it sure gives all of them a dandy black eye. (I fixed your italic above to sort my post out; hope that's OK.) --Drmargi (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Aaaaand she's baacckk! One problem edit reverted already. Nothing else so far; she seems to have moved on to Dancing with the Stars. --Drmargi (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of iCarly episodes

I'd really prefer it if you could discuss your position without edit warring. The discussion you initiated on my talkpage should have indicated that the use of the template is, like your other assertions regarding transclusions (e.g. where to edit the summaries, production codes etc, where to find the main body of these episode lists etc), obvious to the editors with the addition of notes. I have added a note. I don't understand how you could you possibly object to the note. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring. I've fixed all the references that you couldn't be bothered fixing in the season articles so it is unneeded on any of the articles, and hasn't been needed in List of iCarly episodes since I fixed the references there 4 days ago.[22] Your WP:POINTy insistence on keeping an unnecessary template in an article to "draw readers attention to the problems of transclusions"[23] is inappropriate, and you should know better than this. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It's edit warring. You discussed it with me on my talkpage and then waited a while before restoring your preferred version. Edit warring, plain and simple. But well done on your work addressing the problem I identified! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Absolute crap! I removed it because it no longer applies. You added it to the article to "highlight" the use of bare urls in the season articles. Those bare urls no longer exist, so the template serves no purpose. Your restoration of a now inapropriate template is edit-warring. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're absolutely right. I hadn't seen that you'd put in all that good work on the URLs. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know I'm absolutely right. I made it clear that I'd fixed the refs at the article's talk page and here, in the second post in this thread. Your apology for unfairly accusing me of edit-warring is accepted. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely right. Good on you. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Done. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

AussieLegend & Bidgee's Trust (monopoly)

I knew, I knew. Again, again, again. AussieLegend or Bidgee, Bidgee or AussieLegend etc... OK, I remember this and his description of the changes "You were reverted, it is opposed. Take it to the article's talk page and discuss it there". It works both ways. Soon I make changes to the article, you can not go back without discussion. Otherwise, alert on Wikipedia:Administrators and later - investigation on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee to permanently account's block. Already, a dozen people ready to testify in this case. Sorry. For a long time, you are (with User:Bidgee) create a monopoly in the articles about Sydney and rest of Australia. Other users can not change anything in this articles without discussion or consent from you and/or Bidgee, while you (and your accomplice) do what you want, without the consent of the other users. This is unacceptable and contrary to the principles and the idea of ​​Wikipedia. Wikipedia is free encyclopedia - anyone can change it. Therefore it is necessary to alert administrators. This is an official warning, so as you did not say "that you know nothing about this". Maybe it funny for you, but not for others users. If you want a dictatorship you please create your own encyclopedia. This is last warning. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Subtropical-man disruptive editing. Thank you. —Bidgee (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, at least you've got their attention this time.  ;-) --Drmargi (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but this is a different one. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I know. I was just adding a touch of irony to the proceedings. --Drmargi (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

iCarly

'kay, I was thinking that instagram is BooG!e's who plays T-bo on the show, but we really don't know. I will not add it untill there's a reliable source. Bow-bb (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/#!/YaBoyBooGie/media/slideshow?url=http%3A%2F%2Finstagr.am%2Fp%2FL0nmClBJiq%2F And is that BooG!e's real account? Bow-bb (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's someone who calls themselves BooG!e. As to whether it's the real "BooG!e" (his parents must have hated him) there doesn't appear to be a way to determine that. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The Missing Coach

Hello, I've been a way for a while due to computer issues, and have only just become aware of your edits to The Missing Coach. I agree in part - yes, the notability is somewhat questionable, and ideally the references could be improved. However, I disagree with your allplot tag, and have boldly removed it, and also disagree with your view on the reliability of the references I originally provided. First of all - http://www.sodor-island.net/davidmittoninterview.html; your abrupt explanation of it being a fansite is irrelevant, as it is purely an interview with the director of Thomas & Friends, the location of it makes no difference. Secondly, while I may not have made it clear, the book The Twin Engines comprises, as do all Railway Series books, of multiple stories, one of these entitled The Missing Coach. Like all Thomas and Friends episodes at that time, they were based on a story out of the Railway Series, the David Mitton interview also mentions "There's been a rumour floating around for a while about a story from the Railway Series - "The Missing Coach" which is said to be a lost episode [my formatting] - any reaction to this?" - so I do not see how this innocuous and previously referenced link constitutes original research, as your tag suggests. I assume you made the changes in good faith, and as such would like to hear your thoughts on the points mentioned above. Many thanks, Acather96 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree that the article is all plot, please show me what in the body of the article is not plot information. The lede is supposed to summarise the article, which it presently does not, and it is not counted as non-plot information. The only other section is titled "Plot" and contains only of plot information. If you want to see what a reasonable article looks like, please see The Stag Convergence, which is a recently promoted good article. The Missing Coach is nowhere near that. As for sodor-island.net, fansites are generally regarded as not being reliable sources, regardless of the content, and therefore can't be used as sources. You need to use reliable sources in articles. The article may benefit if the lede is rewritten to comply with the Manual of Style and content that isn't currently addressed in the article body is moved from the lede and referenced properly, so I've tagged it as needing attention there too. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, I've made some changes, such as the removal of the plot section (justification in edit summary) and removed some of the tags - on a side note do you think the removal of the plot section in it's entirety is a good idea? I still respectfully disagree with your view on the interview source, and have as such listed it for comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Interview on fansite. Please do comment and your point of view, as you can probably elucidate and orate your POV better than I have. Thanks once again, Acather96 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Removal of the plot section is counter-productive. The article should have plot information, but it also needs other content that establishes its notability. The lead should summarise that information, not replace it, as the previous version did. As it stands now, the article would very quickly fail at AfD. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

mizabotii

from what i have been reading this bot is broke with no ata for fix and advice is to use cluebot it aint perfect but does the job and all records of archives are keptAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't have two bots archiving a page, which is what your edit did. It also changed the archive page from "archive<space>x" to "archivex". There's nothing on the MiszaBot talk page recommending cluebot. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
not on miszabot page but other talk pages it is esicpally admin noticeboards etc, i only done it as temporary thing to archive what is old, and it owuld be hard for us to manual move stuff from the archivex to archive x you revert manual archivign saying the bot shoudl do it, a bto has done it but the normal bot is broke so i cant why you are objecting toa bto doing th automatic stuff and we then jsut fix it, that way we are not deciding what is archivedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
If Miszabot is not working, there should be something on the bot's talk page, and there isn't. It's best to check there. The pages that I've looked at all seem to be archiving normally. My opposition is that having two active archivers set up on one page is going to cause problems when MiszaBot decides to archive the page, and the inconsistency of having two differently numbered archive sets that will result in archived content being scattered. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
read teh bto talk page it on there that ther eis problems, if that the only problem jsut convert it to be cluebot full stop and amke clue bot work for the same type of archiving, or move the current achive to the cluebot wayAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I did read the bot's talk page. The three links at the top of the section that you posted in seem to show the bot is working:
I'm not sure why it's not archiving Template talk:Episode list ATM, so I've tweaked the archiving to see if it will archive again. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It is arching spordiacally User_talk:Misza13#MiszaBots_are_malfunctioning and not archived since 6th june for any tlak pages i dnt think it the config it jsut hte bot there something wrong with it, ok if the bot doesnt achvie say with the next 3-4 weeks we start a discussion on talk page of converting to cluebot since it clearly works?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The links above show that the bots have been archiving since 6 June.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] In the history there have been plenty of Template talk pages archived. Archiving isn't all that critical, there's no need to panic about it. Activity at Template talk:Episode list has slowed down considerably over the past couple of weeks, so we can afford to wait. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


quote "MiszaBot I (talk · contribs) is not completing a full cycle through all of the talk pages. The last two runs it stopped in the I's and the M's. . Brad (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC) MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) Since June 6th it has only been archiving the administrators noticeboard. Brad (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

MiszaBot III (talk · contribs) has not run since June 8th." it says II only archivign adminsitrator noticeboard only, iii not running, and i not goign past i or m, they admit there a problem with it and it aint archiving everything, i agree it went quite but there plenty there that can go and not needed anymore so if there is any other discussion it can be seen and found easier, but yeah it can wait but not foireverAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The quote you've provided is from a week ago. The diffs I provided above for all the bots show that they've all completed runs TODAY. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
yes but not everything has been done, there is lot not getting done, miens has been runnign fien for ages it seems to be anything that is further down the line ie it starts at 0 and works through to z and anything past a certain point doenst work, but we will give it time if it doesnt do anything changing the bot is the only wayAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Template talk:Episode list has now been archived by MiszaBot. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandal on the Run

A user with the IP address, 24.248.40.226, had vandalized the List of episodes page for A.N.T. Farm and I had to correct it. I suggest that we block unregistered users from editing any page on Wikipedia, so we may be able to more easily find vandals.

WikiSpector (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd lead

Thanks for your comment vis a vis the infobox. I had a look and will include the location details etc in the lead sentence. I will change the sentence to reflect that they now have several offices but Friday Harbour is the main one. Will have to think on the wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rough hewn and made of wood (talkcontribs) 03:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Post-nominal spam in BBT articles

I'm well aware that guidelines are, well, guidelines, but I don't see any basis for objection to these edits. As you quote "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name in the first line (although they may occasionally be used in articles of which the person with the degree is not the subject to clarify their qualifications)." And that's exactly what I did. The articles mention degrees all over the place, so nothing was taken out. There is clearly no benefit to listing the degrees everywhere, and this is not consistent with the way acaedmic qualifications are used in the real world (trust me, I'm an acadmic with a Ph.D. myself. Anyone who insisted on being called Joe Blow, Ph.D. would be considered massively douchy). So the first part of your comment "The qualifications of the central cast has been the subject of substantial discussion, so inclusion is part of properly documenting a work of fiction, where we necessarily apply a different set of guidelines than we do for real people" is completely nonsensical, since those qualifications have not been removed. And for the second, please point me to this discussion where there either was or wasn't a clear consensus (you contradicted yourself on that point) that the guidelines are "necessarily" different for fictional characters, especially when we're only talking about removal of post-nominals only, not removal of any information, despite your false characterization of my edits.

As for Sheldon's Sc.D., it's been stated several times that he has 2 Ph.D.s, so it's going to be wrong either way. Except 2 Ph.D.s has been clearly stated multiple times whereas the Sc.D. was mentioned once in an offhand way and is pretty obviously a writer's mistake. But if having the Sc.D. there is more important to you than the most consistent version of the character's backstory, then by all means put it back in. As mentioned it's wrong either way, but insisting for the version that contradicts the more solidly established backstory is pretty obviously ridiculous.

And WRT references, I actually fixed many of these, including some that were broken when I got there. If I missed one, sorry. Since you're probably going through and reverting all my edits without even looking at them, you might try not re-breaking things.

Personally I disagree with mass rejection of constructive edits, especially when the edits are backed with a clear understanding of wikipedia guidelines and the established conventions used for post-nominals in the real world, but I have no desire to edit war so I swear I will never touch another BBT related article for fear of offending your sensibilities. I only replied in case you do actually care more for wikipedia than your rejection of my edits would indicate (WP:AGF and all that). PigArcher (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated on your talk page, your application of WP:CREDENTIAL is misguided, as it applies to real people not fictional characters. Coincidentally. I had just added "MOS:BIO actually hints at this in the hatnote directing readers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, which deals with "biographies of only real humans; thus, the project does not cover other animals or fictitious persons (such as pseudonyms) or fictional characters", and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the title being self explanatory", before noticin the message on my talk page.
"There is clearly no benefit to listing the degrees everywhere" - I agree, which is why I don't oppose your removing the content from the season articles. However, in articles on the characters the qualifications form part of the documentation of the character.
"this is not consistent with the way acaedmic qualifications are used in the real world " - We're not talking about the real world. The Big Bang Theory is a fictional work, and we treat fiction differently to the real world. For example we always treat fiction in the present.
"So the first part of your comment "The qualifications of the central cast has been the subject of substantial discussion, so inclusion is part of properly documenting a work of fiction, where we necessarily apply a different set of guidelines than we do for real people" is completely nonsensical" - No, it's not nonsensical because that's what we do. We can't treat fiction the same way we treat the real world because fiction doesn't have to follow real-world rules. Howard had a very minimal amount of astronaut training but went into space at the end of season 5, that wouldn't happen inthe real world.
"please point me to this discussion where there either was or wasn't a clear consensus (you contradicted yourself on that point)" - No, I didn't contradict myself. The discussion concerned the applicability of MOS:BIO to fictional articles. There was no consensus to apply it to fiction, and the majority of editors supported the view that it shouldn't. That, however, doesn't form a consensus but it does set a precedent, supported by the fact that the MOS itself points to no articles dealing with fiction but does specifically point to WP:BLP and WP:BIOG, which both deal with real people. The discussion that I spoke of is here. It's predominantly about names but many of the arguments are relevant.
"As for Sheldon's Sc.D., it's been stated several times that he has 2 Ph.D.s, so it's going to be wrong either way." - Still, there is a clear statement in The Love Car Displacement, by Sheldon himself, who states he is "Dr. Sheldon Cooper, B.S., M.S., M.A., Ph.D. and Sc.D." This is a reliable source.
"whereas the Sc.D. was mentioned once in an offhand way" - It wasn't offhand at all. It was a clear statement.
"and is pretty obviously a writer's mistake" - It may well be, although that's really original research but it was stated in the episode so it's entirely valid in the fictional world.
"And WRT references, I actually fixed many of these, including some that were broken when I got there" - As far as I can see you only fixed one,[33] but still, it is appreciated.
"Since you're probably going through and reverting all my edits without even looking at them," - No, I've checked every one of your edits to the articles thoroughly before changing what needed to be changed. You'll notice that some of your changes were retained as they were valid. I don't blanket revert unless an editor has completely screwed up.
"Personally I disagree with mass rejection of constructive edits, especially when the edits are backed with a clear understanding of wikipedia guidelines and the established conventions used for post-nominals in the real world," - And there we have the problem. Your edits demonstrate a misunderstanding of the applicability of guidelines and a misconception that fiction is treated the same as the real world. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)