User talk:deliriousandlost/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Page 3Page 4Page 5



Noöne

Originally posted on User talk:QuasyBoy, moved for context since response was given here.
In response to your edit summary query, it is not Canadian spelling. More like a modern application of a somewhat archaïc convention. Though most are unaware of this its use can still be found in naïve. Since i started that article i would appreciäte your coöperation by not changing the spelling to your preference. Face-wink.svg And yes i reälise that i do not spell that way when i write Canadian and only some of the time when i write realise. Just another quirk. Cheers delirious & lost~hugs~ 22:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Noöne

I'm sorry, I just wasn't familiar with the text. I didn't mean to offend you. Also, I wasn't necessarily changing the the spelling to my preference, I was changing it in case some people weren't familiar with it, that's all. And I was editing in good faith like I always do. On another note, I follow your work and I do respect your edits. :) QuasyBoy 22:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you say you follow my work you hopefully will notice that i prefer to write where started but if moved i will stay there and copy over anything - a long, wordy way of saying i am replying here instead of on your talk page.

I'm not offended. I went to modest effort to phrase that with significant examples just to show you how it is applied and where i don't use it. The Face-wink.svg was another hint that i was not being so serious or offended. It is an older way of identifying consecutive vowels that are to be pronounced individually. For the sake of having a name how about i call it "High Recently Old English". I don't write in any particular, recognised variant of English. Writing in American for American articles is a challenge for me as i do not often use the z key. That was not an intentional spelling but my own spelling accidentally creeping into main space. If you see the summary for episode one you will notice i wrote "re-assigned" instead of "reässigned". The former is for main space; the latter would be used by myself on talk pages and anything other than articles, emails and other personal correspondence, and on my site for the show.

A quirk you might be amused by. On the article for The Evidence someone had themselves listed in the cast for about 2 ½ years as "Avid Fan".[1] What is more surprising is the the core of the article has existed as copyvio since it was expanded from a one paragraph article, more than 4 ½ years ago.[2] I missed it until i read some press releases today and recognised the text. If you want to read an example of a comprehensive critical reception then the one i put on The Evidence might interest you. Critical reception and ratings are most of what i am doing these days. Its is nice to know i have a fan. If you happen to know The Evidence and can expand the show summary or characters that would be just a bonus. I know new shows are all the rage but people do click on older work in filmographies. That is one way i find my little projects here. Cheers
I remember that show, unfortunately I'm not too familiar with it. :( QuasyBoy 23:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
So we are really going to disagree over keeping the references on the titles of D187 huh? I'll put them back in next time i have some reason to edit the article, again. Maybe. Too many battlefronts. None are really worth it.
If you wanna put them back, go ahead. I just figured why should references be attached to the episode titles if the episode has aired. QuasyBoy 16:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone ignorantly comes along with AWB and sees the / in each title and believes them to be |AltTitle= that are incorrectly formatted and changes all of them to that. It is odd but it could happen. Stranger things are done every day.
I don't know about that, But those slashes are actually a part of the episode title. QuasyBoy 16:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Mistakes made all the time to "fix" things that appear wrong that are actually correct and the "fixing" actually "breaks" them. If you know of the show then you probably know the titles are such but if you are just browsing for little fixes and you come across the list of episodes you might be tempted to take the "second title" and put it in as |AltTitle= to fix my mistakes. Correcting the spelling in a reference where the source is where the spelling error is actually "breaks" the reference and then needs to be "fixed". Quirky. Does happen. Similar principle here. Preëmptive measure to retain reference to titles should anyone come along with this "fix" in mind.
Someone already moved the show to Detroit 187 a couple of weeks ago so it is not like there isn't some cause to anticipate odd happenings with the "/" in the episode titles.

Article titles

I seconded you; would you now comment at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Improper close? JJB 17:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just over there. That all appeared since i last refreshed the page! Or did i miss something?
Last time i commented too soon it shut everything down - lone voice of opposition being ignored. I have been told that now that it is the staus quo good luck on it being undone. But that is exactly what i am after. I added a note to the closer's talk page. If nothing comes of that second notice of my contesting the close and change in policy (someone else left the closer a note about this a week and a half ago) then i think i will take it to an RFC on the close itself. I am giving some time for a response.
I couldn't resist any longer. I saw someone was challenging the delayed complaint. And someone calling the challenging of the consensus assessment to be disruptive. Yeah. That be fighting words. Silencing insubordination. No whistleblowers here, move on. ... sometimes one just has to stand where she is instead of moving on.

OK thanks. Now help me out: a large portion of my objection is the technical implementation, which I need to tone down since they seem, repeat seem, to be implementing correctly and without fuss other than the usual wars over "how to format my favorite TV show". So tell me what the biggest overall concerns are for you on this. I've got (1) improper close, by interested party, (2) forcing everybody to italicize (parts are easy, but piping [["Pilot" (Lost)|"Pilot" (''Lost'')]] is ridiculous and fully supports my point about newbie-biting), (3) not forcing the use of quotation marks where they would appear in prose, (4) not implementing Lambian's suggestion (though it may happen someday) that brackets in wikimarkup automatically look up the correct formatting of the contents, (5) font problems with mixing italics and roman (I don't always agree with Pmanderson, but "ω-consistent" is ugly). But these are not the strongest in that the overall consistency argument seems to be working its way through. Maybe the proper course is to go to a centralized discussion page (RFC with WP:CENT link) and ensure that the improper close is noted and any eventual implementation handles all serious objections? The basic idea of "we can so we will" is not really something to argue against unless it's a serious immorality. JJB 19:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well lets see.
  1. I personally don't like it one bit. I think it looks ridiculous. = not strong arguement but still true.
  2. The one changing the policy, Ozob, has 25 other posts in the RFC. Clearly involved. What is odd that the votes and comments are all against italics but then the close finds in favour of italics. if that were me and i was not in favour of it i would let it go as long as i could hoping it would end up more favourable; i would not jump in and close it knowing it was against what i wanted. It is just odd.
  3. The doublestandard of excluding quotation marks and [ { ] ] is a concern. Ever reference a dvd release to Amazon? Chances are good that there will be [ ] in the title; you then have to lie & change it to ( ) or you mess up the reference. I don't want quotation marks either. If one is so absolutely called for on style grounds why is the other excluded on the same merits? = confused application of policy and well everything
  4. The above would be resolved by Lambiam's suggestion.
  5. The example of the LOST pilot is one issue of awkwardness. That is not the most awkward of examples. The Hands That Built America (Theme from 'Gangs of New York'). [[The Hands That Built America (Theme from Gangs of New York)|"The Hands That Built America (Theme from '''Gangs of New York''')"]] or something like that.
  6. "ω-consistent" is what i see. For a moment i was wondering where the "Omega" came from. Then i realised it is not an italicised w.
Do you know what it feels like to know that for having never been involved in policy discussions i have only myself to blame for the last almost 9 years of odd policies.
I now know why i was never involved before. The futility of being involved is equal to that of not being involved. So why waste ones time. There are other things one can do with her life and time than this. The absurd, conflicting policies (that spawned the policy to ignore all policies) will come no matter what. Contesting this results in being called disruptive. FUCK IT ALL.
The technical implementation is going to be a pain. It will mean a handful of new templates and new warning that you did not use the correct template to italicise the title. Then there will be the fighting over which parts to italicise, such as with boats. And if quotation marks are included, will they be italicised or will they be excluded.
My approach is not the technical so much as the assessment of consensus. That other people appear to think a simply minority is sufficient for a site-wide policy change that affects hundreds of thousands of articles is proof of the futility of contesting it. It amounts it implementation of ignore all rules to ignore the consensus policy. Either that or there is a gross, base flaw in the general comprehension of the meaning of the word consensus.
I moved a little over to an archive so i thought to comment here again. This is pointless. Consensus is always to go with the status quo. Once something becomes the status quo, even if it was against consensus, it is absolutely pointless to try to get it reversed. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and one can not cite the previous discussion as proof of the lack of consensus Face-wink.svg
CSS is not a strong point for me but if i could get something to custom override/ignore the {{italic title}} in all the infoboxes then i would be happy. I know it is settling but with consensus that the consensus is legit (laugh at that a minute or two) what is the use in trying.
The consensus that the consensus is legit has gone out the window; someone else says it doesn't look like there is the support for italics from (all of or the most recent - not sure which) RFC.

Hi!

Ratings

Is that site easy to navigate? Seems reliable to me! Jayy008 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Short Answer:
Not always so easy to navigate but direct links are available to most data without needing to guess search terms or discarded categories like one has to on TVBTN. In my opinion it is as reliable as TVBTN though not as popular with the ratings junkies that are on PIFeedback and TVBTN.
Long Answer:
That site has been around since start of the 2006-07 tv season, with a focus on tv and sci-fi movies. I used it on List of Journeyman episodes and i think on Traveler too to fill in weeks where ABC Medianet didn't have info available. I did add it to Chase (that very example i gave on your talk page) and the next day for Detroit 1-8-7 to replace the overnight numbers that had been there some 5 weeks now. I am so in the habit of using TVBTN on WP that i don't think to look there when i have one of these edit windows open :P I also use it on my personal site of tv shows i like that ended too soon. It pretty much is the competition for TV By The Numbers.
As to being easy to navigate, not always. The older you dig for info the trickier it gets to find. Not every day's ratings is there; maybe i just haven't looked in the right spot. Sometimes 3 days of ratings are posted on one day in 3 different entries so it ends up they are not on the list of entries for the day you would expect. The more recent years are less glitchy but still not perfect. You get used to it the more you use it.
In terms of comparing the data there to elsewhere as available i have not had any serious issue. I did find a single entry for one show that had data for the wrong previous episode. Out of hundreds of uses both here and personally a single error is not of concern for me. The PIFeedback guy corrected his post about this very episode of gg that prompted this, raising the W18-34 demographic by .5 so yeah, typos do happen now and then.
Like i mentioned on your talk page the biggest issue is someone reading the references section of the page and noticing that the reference for 5 October 2009 says "Broadcast TV ratings for 12 October" and without looking at the info in the reference they assume it is wrong and 'fix' or remove all of it. That is what happened on List of Lie to Me episodes a little while ago.
Got it. The source seems fine but where is October? Jayy008 (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Glitch in the calendar? I've read various days' entries from last month so I am certain they exist(ed). You might need to manipulate the URL to the desired date. Normally the calendar is the most useful tool on the site. Different sections seem to have their own calendar. It could be a coding error that has the wrong calendar displaying.

Perhaps! I do like the site and I understand how to use it now, but I think it's better as a fall back. TV by the Numbers should be used where it can. Jayy008 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that is why i mentioned it - TVBTN did't put up finals until week 3 of s4 of gossip girl so you were stuck trying to find something for the earlier episodes. It overlaps the gap between ABC Medianet and TVBTN. If you don't work with shows from 2004-08 then you probably won't use it often but it is there for those times when you might need it.
That for the info. It's definitely very helpful. Jayy008 (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nudge

Hi D&L - are you still working on this ACC request? Thanks.  7  23:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am waiting for James to let me know how recent the activity is and what went on regarding the Finnish account so i can know if i should consider it or discard it in assessing similarity. ~hugs~
Got it. Not sure about FI.sysops - maybe user:Jafeluv (from here). Thanks.  7  23:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You read edit summaries :) Now to think about it. James got back to me about why ever single edit from that account is deleted but the account isn't blocked. See comment on request.
Thanks.  7  00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

The First Thanksgiving Jean Louis Gerome Ferris.png
Xmas tree.svg
HAPPY HOLIDAYS !
Wishing you and yours a very peaceful and joyous holiday season


Mlpearc

Re:regarding your marking edits as vandalism on List of Law & Order: UK episodes

Sorry about that. Just started editing recently. --AznBurger (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:AznBurger) I saw you are an admin on a wikia site so i assumed you know the technical side of wikis but maybe didn't know the policies here. If you want to read it you can see my welcome message at user:deliriousandlost/welcome. Normally it would be like the header on a talk page but you already have one. :P It has links to basic policies and cookies and more ~hugs~ delirious & lost~hugs~ 18:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --AznBurger (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, am I supposed to reply on your talk page, or is {{talkback}} preferred? --AznBurger (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
On this note, i generally keep conversations together. You replied to me here instead of on your talk page; uncertain if you would look here for a reply i decided to respond on your talk page and subsequently copy it to here. The header on my talk page here declares my hatred of {{talkback}} Face-wink.svg For some they are helpful. I find them to be superfluous edit count padding that is redundant to active use of one's watchlist. That and when i am spending some time with the wikipedia:request an account project i can accumulate a lot of user talk page edits. Preferences vary and often can be found in the header or edit notice of a user's talk page.
From what experience i have i have noticed that English Wikipedia has many more rules/policies/guidelines than your typical Wikia site. It takes a long time to learn even 10% of them. By then you only actually know 9% because new policies/rules have been established while you were familiarising yourself with that initial allotment :P Hence my suggestion to just be careful.
Okay, thanks. --AznBurger (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

the good guys

Thanks for your message. I deeply appreciate your welcoming me to Wikipedia and your comments regarding my edits to the "Frank Savage" section of the article. i am glad to have helped :) --Jeffersonnnnn (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No happy List of Medium episodes (season 7)

Though I'd respond to that here instead of on the article's talk page for fear of perpetuating, but you're preaching to the choir here. But what are you going to do when someone's answer is to reach for arbitration when he doesn't win consensus, and when the arbiter is quoting rules in the face of the practicalities he appears completely unfamiliar with? I think these guys are too mired in the "encyclopedia" aspect to realize that this world of popular media as it appears here on Wiki is inundated with fanboy participation from people outside the project. How many speculative sources and rumors do we revert on a daily basis because of the newbies and outsiders who come in treating their favorite show's page like a fan sight? It's entirely possible that we have a more relaxed method of editing on these pages, but it's only in the interest of keeping the page going; the only other choice is to spend every day trying to teach encyclopedia editing to an influx of spoiler hounds and vandals, and that's a waste of time I think only these two would be interested in. I'll admit, I was hoping the proposal alone would have gotten us under the radar for the seven weeks we have left to the last episode, and the matter would drop, but the nudge who started all of this was watching to make sure he got his way. At least there's some solace that it seems to be the only page he's interested in (for now), and it'll only affect 3 episodes as a result. KnownAlias contact 11:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You're the one preaching to the choir :P Look where you are leaving the message and that it was you who left the initial message here, not i.
The fanboys mostly come here. The fangirls mostly are found on twitter. I am in the wrong place. Someone had to start the article on Code 58 and run the live chat for the season finale last night. The boys weren't going to do either. Diana Maria Riva dropped by for a while. There is a very simple reason why she wrapped earlier then everyone else. Aaron Ginsburg shared set pics and promised a series of behind the scenes pics releases if he survives being in Columbia right now. And that is the first mention of anything from those chats that i have put anywhere on this wiki.
Now that the season finale of The Good Guys has come along i can devote some more time to enjoying Medium and Smallville. They should provide me many years of Friday viewing ahead :P I did have fun with me comments on Medium (season 7). Does it show? It is almost as fun an argument to make as Wikipedia is not a reliable source but with every internal link one makes they affirm the content they link to. Wrap your head around that fundamental conflict of policy and function.
As to daily reverting, i don't do much. My watchlist is not the more popular shows. Canadian, forthcoming, cancelled, forgotten, or cancellation announced; if they are of any interest to me in the first place. Season 3 of Flashpoint hasn't finished broadcast yet but season 4 starts filming in February; 18 episodes. Can't reliably cite it sufficiently for WP. It went on my site instead. Late last night Matt Nix seemed to kind of imply that there is to be no second season for Jack And Dan / Code 58 / The Five Eight / The Good Guys. Clarification didn't come before i went to sleep. You interrupted my checking my watchlist with a new message banner. I now get to watch that article for the speculation that is like to come from many people. It is the responsible thing to do when you created the article and wrote what today is somewhere about half of the content. Cheers

Merry Christmas!

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Very sneaky... and thanks! - Dravecky (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

I hope 2011 brings you happiness and fulfilment! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 23:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wishes for the new year :)

It's always fantastic and amazing to see you around. Seeing your signature at Requests_for_adminship/Lear's_Fool was so refreshing :):) Best wishes for the new year Del. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I take a bit to chop down my initial long vote to a short vote ... only to save it and see that while i was proof-reading my vote X! had closed the rfa. I swear they should set a bureaucrat level protection on them when they do that just to make people get a notice when they click "Save page". Glad it cheered you up. Happy Monday. i u. You somehow always show up just when i need a friend. Thank you.
The feelings are mutual Del. You're always there :) Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Italic titles

I don't know you were against them. :( I have no problem with them personally, considering italics are used in actual articles for works of art, why not for the wiki article/file names. And about the initial first names with spaces in second letter, I agree, I don't get it either. I mean come on, it's J.J. Abrams not J. J. Abrams. :) QuasyBoy 16:05, 10 Janauary 2011 (UTC)

I use italics on my own site but headings are headings. Next someone will find a way to italicise the title of a tv show in the url so that it will be extra super clear what the name of a show is. I find it sloppy, messy, unprofessional, and just a pain to read when italics are used in headings.
<micro rant>
OMG someone else who agrees with me!!! Here is the really funny joke about this. The MOS has been applied so strictly that the article title declares the T & W in TW Peacocke to stand for different names but nowhere on the interwebs that i have ever found has mention of what those letters stand for been given. His father's name is Thomas Peacocke. One could assume the T is for Thomas but the W has not even an assumption. It is just as likely that his name really is nothing more than TW Peacocke. If so then Wikipedia has indeed renamed him per their manual of style. Even the line "Jeffrey Jacob "J. J." Abrams" contains spaces and formally declares his name to be other than what he is known by. I really hate applying a manual of style to a person's name but Wikipedia does it about 89% of the time. The thing is that it is optional to do so but until you see where it can affect the results of the google link on an AfD people don't care. Or imagine you yourself are known by initials and fear becoming famous enough that you would end up spending all of your free time moving your article back to your name all the while amassing hundreds of additional accounts and being banned having the article on yourself formally and firmly kept not at the name you are known by all for not respecting the Wikipedia community all because consensus was to not respect you in the first place. (There is the nice note about consensus can change but there is no acceptance that consensus can be wrong.) In some aspects of my life i am known by initials. Having to provide references to justify removing a space artificially added by someone editing Wikipedia is truly no fun until you amass dozens of references in all sorts of languages from all over the planet and the one commonality is the "J.J." instead of "J. J.". It didn't happen with J.J. Abrams but other people. But still someone can come along and move an article because "MOS says i can" and you start over. That is what happened with J.J. Abrams, people gave up trying to have the article as he is actually known because people who are "MOS rules the world" kept objecting and so for years now Mr Abrams' article has contained and declared proper the spaces between the initials. See also RH Thomson, a very famous Canadian actor known by initials without periods (the link here works for a reason); Wikipedia insists upon formally declaring both the space and the period in what he is known by. I am sooooooo tempted to tag them all as [citation needed].
Thanks for the suggestion. But am usually in older TV shows if I am wikilinking directors and writers, that's been my thing lately. Also, a lot of those one-season dramas from the past couple of years, are a blur to me. :P On another case I wanted to give a heads up on this page Gilmore Girls (season 1), I thought I would let you know about it, since you revamped the episode list some months ago. QuasyBoy 18:40, 2011 (UTC)
Crap, crap crap, crap. I was planning on putting up the entire series' seven season articles in 7 WP edits. (I had been working on them on my own wiki.) I guess i was too slow.
There are a few longer running shows i really enjoy but most of the shows i am into last 1 season or a fraction thereof.

Detroit 1-8-7 redlinks

I apologize for removing them but if you are redlinking those two particular names, why not red link the other names that do not have articles, it's only fair. QuasyBoy 18:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Creating a couple of links for showing there is something in the "what links here" for them. The director has a few shows but the writer only has 2 others. If a person has no article but has a lot of links to their prospective article i tend to not add more links. Jason Richman, the creator of the show, is one such person who has a whole 2 links. I missed him. People don't link prominent links to non-existent pages (which for me are bright orange) and will either create the article or more often remove the link. I was going to make a nice speech about Jon Michael Hill but well you know that story. I found out that the article on D.J. Cotrona had been deleted because the link had changed colours. People were super bloody lazy there deleting it based on what crap it was not looking at the immediate growth potential of it (aka bad nomination and lemming votes of support). I have noticed a lot of people don't like links to prospective articles. I do. So i thank you for writing the bio on Detective Washington ;)
Tell me about it, there are some people that just AFD the pages due to "lack of sources". Based on my experience it's very hard to find adequate sources for people in television, especially if that person is not the star of the show. But my argument with the page is why not redlink all the other black text writers and directors, why just single those two, that's pretty fair to me. And creating a page for Jon Michael Hill wasn't a problem at all. ;) QuasyBoy 19:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you read the D.J. article? I think all but a couple of the references were available at the time of the no-souces-AFD. D.J. starred in two shows and was cast as Superman in a movie to be made by Warner Bros. and still.... but before that she tried to get it speedy deleted for "A7"[3] The article needed extreme clean-up but she was adamant and put great effort into having it deleted. Half that effort and she could have scored herself a DYK thingy. Did you know that this will come back to bite her butt if i ever notice a nomination for admin from her or of her. I might even try to A7 the rfa; I have been told i should do that more often and i need some practice ;)
That was refreshing. I have been wanting to respond to that for almost a year now. If i hadn't been a fan of D.J.'s and one day wondered what films he has been in while not doing tv shows i would not have noticed his WP article was deleted and then there would have been two red/orange links in the infobox of Detroit 1-8-7 for the cast members.
Yes, the important is that the D.J. Cotrona page is re-created with a bountyful of references. :) But, you still didn't answer my question about the the writers and directors that do not have articles in the Detroit 1-8-7 episode list. As for the ones that are not redlinked should they be, like you did for Matthew Penn and Andrew Fash. Why not redlink Denitria Harris-Lawrence, Nikki Toscano and Byron Balasco as well. QuasyBoy 22:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It is so remarkably simple you missed it some 6 hours ago. I said i missed him. Expand that to I missed them. One working link per season and one link to a prospective article per page. I have found that to be a very practical use of links. And i took out the links here because that is most counter-productive to a measurement of their appearance in WP and i try to keep this page as free from links and google indexing as i can. What it comes down to is that i like to add a link but so many people come along and remove them for not having an article so yeah i sometimes haven't bothered of late to add in any of the links. You add in disambiguation to links of directors and yet you are the one who removed the link to prospective articles while also having created the article for Jon Michael Hill and saying to leave it linked until the article was created. It is a basket of contradiction. When i do it is not random and unintentional. For having come along and redone Blind Justice about 6 years later i find a fair number of the writers on that show now have their own articles on WP but back when Blind Justice was a new show probably none of them had articles. It was to serve as a reminder to review the rest of the list and add in the links where they needed to be added. Instead i am discussing it with you because i didn't like your calling them random and thus implying them to be inappropriate. and i am now missing BONES for still being here writing this so laters.
The reason why I stated that Jon Michael Hill stay linked a few months ago in my edit summary was because the show was still new at the time and I was expecting that someone would make an article for him. I later took the initiative to do it which wasn't problem at all. But you since explained your redlinking reasons, I understand now. But another editor who comes across the page might see those two links as random, just saying.

On another note, Being on Wikipedia for 5 years, You are one of the first editors that I have seen to display such a zany sense of humor. :) Besides your humor, in discussions you are able to explain your self very well in 50 or so words, which kills sometimes, LOL. I want us to be friends. :) Take this:


QuasyBoy 17:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"...expecting that someone would make an article for him." HaHaHaHaHa. People don't make articles on entertainers anymore. The quota of stubs has been met and exceeded. Zany sense of humour? This place will make you crazy if you care enough to bother with most things. Like how i hate the show skins but for the sake of proper disambiguation i moved it to Skins (North American TV series) and despite it being made in Canada and produced by the British company that made the original along with a Canadian company and starring mostly Canadians a few people who have no idea what the hell i am talking about in properly disambiguating the title are fighting with me that it doesn't matter it is made in Canada and stars Canadians and is shown in Canada uncensored or that it is not made by an American company. Matching the disambiguation of the similarily circumstanced Queer as Folk (North American TV series) is somehow wrong even though in the US it has been referred to as Queer As Folk US. This is one of those times where wikipedia:consensus can be wrong but it is still consensus and thus you lose applies. There is also wikipedia:reliable sources can be wrong and not even know it so use some common sense because they might not have. I've had an account for about 5 years but i have been around Wikipedia since back when the only domain was the now-redirecting wikipedia.com which puts me at over 9 years. If you approach things as most people you encounter in the entertainment section of WP are 11-14 yr old boys promoting the likes of Beyonce and that cool new spy show and that cartoon then it is easier to deal with the stupidity that can be found in places. Noöne is going to bother with the biography of probably the most brilliant pilot director of this time, David Nutter. Anyone with the knowledge can direct a tv show but not many of them are willing to direct a pilot. Mr Nutter does it so well. Now i am i the mood to watch the pilots of Smallville and Jack & Bobby. The tone he set made both shows absolutely brilliant and there are so many others too. Smallville got its own premiere dvd release in Canada (which is worth getting just for the transition between the two episodes) and well the Jack & Bobby pilot was the first ever episode of tv to be made official available online prior to its broadcast. Now, i scored the first two episodes of Episodes earlier this month via a similar manner and the first three episodes of The Chicago Code are apparently out there but i have yet to find them :P If you want a show where Americans insult British tv then Episodes will be brilliant.
It seems you totally veering off our discussion, LOL. But I do agree Wikipedia can be shady sometimes, What can we do, gotta deal with it. And yes, David Nutter is a brilliant pilot director, he's the go-to guy for action drama pilots. James Burrows is his sitcom counterpart. :) QuasyBoy 17:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought i had a disclaimer here that off-topic discussions are welcome on my rant page. But it wasn't really off discussion that much. Let me connect it for you and my other readers (i think i might have one or two). The red link removal folk take them out because red links show where WP is lacking. Most directors if they have an article have nothing more than a list of their work. Those are the stubs in plenty that have people not wanting to create more. Where a director is known for working in a specific field or in a somewhat unique manner and people have written of his work in that more unique manner and i find the other day when i finally read the article that there is no mention of it on WP i am disappointed. That is why i mentioned David Nutter. He is an example of a notable director, by WP standards or the rest of the world, and still his article contains no mention of that which he is best known for. But hey, at least his article has an infobox. Linking David Nutter's article was so that maybe someone find this discussion and is inspired to greatly expand Mr Nutter's article because it has the potential to be much more developed than it presently is. I wouldn't say Mr Nutter is exclusive to action drama pilots as Jack & Bobby is not at all like Terminator or RoboCop but he still directed the pilot. The not-real policies are a couple i often cite when something just gets ridiculous, such as everyone agreeing Billboard is wrong on a matter but the 7 other sources which are accurate are trumped by the generally accepted reliability of Billboard.com even though in this instance Billboard is absolutely wrong and the article uses the Billboard reference to have knowingly wrong info and wikipedia:reliable sources is citied as the reason for having knowingly inaccurate information in an article. That is wikipedia:reliable sources can be wrong and not even know it so use some common sense because they might not have. The other one, wikipedia:consensus can be wrong but it is still consensus and thus you lose, is when a discussion involved a majority of people who don't understand the policy you are speaking of and they all tell you you are wrong and call you names and threaten to have you blocked for your dissent. Like this edit summary from the remake of Skins from about 7 hours ago, "If anyone changes anything to "Canada" instead of "U.S." without even participating in the discussion, or if the problem hasn't been solved, I guarantee there will be major problems here". That from someone who really wants to keep it as (U.S. TV series) despite having as much or more connexion to Canada. (See bottom right of page 2 of this for the basic production info on the series from the Ontario Media Development Corporation.) Yesternight the WikiProject Canada tag which was added by someone else was removed and i was called out on exercising my right to make up stories that the US and Canada are in North America. Yeah, i am still not sure on that. But consensus is that i am wrong and that the policy is wrong and that Canada is not part of North America. And that is about the time to remove something from your watchlist. Odd actions about consensus and red links (which are still orange thanks to my CSS) are rather connected to me as the removal of links is one of those odd actions. The red link policy itself says it is ok to create links where there is plausibility of creating an article but at the same time says not to do so in lists. Where else do you often find television directors mentioned? Writers are less likely to have articles and thus are less often linked. Like this one writer turned producer of Big Love just happens to have won an Academy Award for a film he wrote a few years ago so he has an article. Aaron Ginsburg is a brilliant writer but so far the only article about him is a little blurb on my website. In a few years as he gets more notice and more work he might become popular enough for a WP article but for now i don't think he is red-linked. If that doesn't make some connexion of all of this then do remember that this is my rant page ;)

Talk page etiquette

Deleting comments that you have made on talk pages, especially after others have replied to them, as you did at Talk:List of Top Gear episodes,[4][5] is considered to be extremely poor etiquette and, to be quite blunt, it's rather puerile. It makes it hard for other editors to read, let alone understand the context of the discussion. As per WP:REDACT, which I directed you to in my edit summary,[6] if you wish to redact what you've said, strike through the comments like "<s>this</s>", which results in "this". That way other editors can still read the discussion without having to guess. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Aussie, Drmargi has issue with the existence of my comments. Rather than continue the fight with drmargi it is just easiest to remove my comments. Oddly enough i wrote a note on your talk page about the same time you were writing this one.

Hello, Deliriousandlost. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Talk page etiquette at Talk:List of Top Gear episodes. Thank you. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Aussie, get the full story before you warn me. Drmargi wants me 100% out of the rfc and in my obliging drmargi i am conflicting with yourself. Considering i did this to back out of a conflict this is really ridiculous - trading one disagreement for a disagreement on the acceptable resolution to the first disagreement. I mean, come on!
Would you please point to the specific post drmargi has made that you believe is him "wanting you 100% out"? Unless I've missed something, s/he hasn't said anything remotely indicating that is her/his desire. I do believe drmargi has made a valid point that objecting to the RfC isn't helping the discussion though. MrCrackers (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Which one of the times drmargi moved my comment out of the rfc do you want me to cite as the first example of drmargi wanting me out of the rfc? Or the time drmargi edits an older post to now label my comment as inappropriately placed? [7] Or this one where drmargi tells me to avoidance would be best? [8] Or this one where drmargi calls into question my motives for being involved in the first place? [9] If somewhere in that you get the impression drmargi doesn't want me gone then do show me where because i see it as very much wanting me gone. And i had no issue with leaving it but Aussie did because removing my comments resulted in the others lacking context. If one wants me gone and another to stay i lose either way. delirious & lost~hugs~ 17:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
As to the avoidance it is a slight problem since drmargi left me a talk back so as to ensure i would immediately come back to see that request which is itself hardly conducive to avoiding and the bigger issue - drmargi and i edit a greatly overlapping interest. I would guess that about 80% of the current tv shows i edit are also edited by drmargi. That makes avoiding drmargi tricky.

To all who care, this was all to avoid an issue blowing up. The solution to keep the first issue minimal and move on is the cause of the second issue, this one of my removing my comments from a talk page. That this issue was objected to, counter-objected, counter-counter-objected, and the counter-counter-objection was complied with seems to have been lost because after the settlement was reached Aussie then filed the etiquette report on me. So yes, am just a bit upset with Aussie right now because he is normally so exacting with his timeline and he missed this by 11 minutes and as a result ensured that the issue would continue yet further instead accepting that he got the resolution he asked for.

Dieresis

I just wanted to tip my virtual hat to you on your use of the dieresis in words like noöne and coöperate. Though it's non-standard these days (and I wouldn't necessarily support the use of that spelling in articles), it's a lovely stylistic grace note in discussions. :) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have an old compact Oxford dictionary that i found while cleaning out a storage room in my highschool library. I didn't have a dictionary and the books were being recycled so the librarian said i could have it. This was back in the days when internet was still a bit of an expensive and very slow novelty to have. In it i found mention of that alternative to using a "-" in such words. I liked it. It was somewhat out-dated when that dictionary was published (the dictionary told me so) and i think that edition of the dictionary is now about the 50 years old mark. Somehow it remains accepted use in one word in English and i am too naïve to give a reason for that exception. Reäction from most spell-checkers to my use of this style is rather negative. I describe this as a mash of modern and archaïc Canadian, Irish, and British English. Switching to write in American for Wikipedia article space does have me slip up here and there but most people are generally very coöperative when that does happen.
And yes, i use the ALT+### in case you were wondering. It comes in handy when adding in writers and directors with French and Spanish names to television episode lists to know the codes. Hand-written personal and professional correspondence from myself also bares this stylistic grace.
Again, i thank you. I needed some good news right about now and this was exactly the remedy.

Thanks

Jessica,

I want to thank you for your fast reply. I will give it. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The WB/UPN/The CW

I have more questions than a reply. OTH ended at season 7, does that mean you didn't like it after season 6? I can't pass judgement at Smallville as I'm only on season 5, I'm getting there! lol. Is it Ostroff's choice to run in W18-34? I would have thought it was CBS/WB when they launched it. As for Enterprise, I had no idea she did that. I'm kinda annoyed now as I wanted to get the full seven seasons. Enterprise's season four was a masterpiece but they had an awful rushed finale which as Jolene Blalock said it was just an ep of TNG. Is it weird I watch everything on The CW and like the Star Trek franchise? lol PS. No hatred, everyone's entitled to their opinions! Jayy008 (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have downloaded it but have not watch OTH since CMM & HB left the show. Well if you have the premiere or the season 1 official dvd then there is a commentary or something about how they plan to keep it to a no-flights-no-tights but the last couple of seasons of Smallville have been pushing that sooooo much as they squeeze out extra episodes. Tom Welling is still Clark Kent but is now older than Dean Cain was when he was portraying Superman in Lois & Clark way back when. The believability factor is fast fading for me that the show will not end in some great conflict with the general story of Superman. I do believe that it is Ostroff who decided to target w18-34. It is more like what US cable channels do in targetting a specific demographic and selling advertising space to companies interested in that rather than just saying A18-49 freeforallfrenzymesscomeandgetitboys like the other networks do. If you have ever watched a new episode of NCIS (such as tonight's) you would notice that a lot of the advertising sold is sooooo not directed at people in their 20s but enough people in their 20s do watch it and there is enough advertising directed at them to keep NCIS both well watched by older people and sufficiently watched by younger people to generate very satisfactory numbers in all/most categories. You have watched The CW enough to judge how well Enterprise would have fit in had it been kept. It was up to her if it was kept or not. Putting it on Fridays and watching the ratings drop was the perfect way to justify getting rid of it. I appreciated the finale of Enterprise for how it did work the two shows together but i also saw it coming many months before it was made. The moment word of Enterprise moving to Friday broke i knew they were aiming to a continuity bridge to ST TNG. That had my disappointment with the lack of resolution to Enterprise slightly tempered.
Is it weird that i loved most of The WB but if i wrote what i think of most of The CW i would be having 17 admins fighting over who would block me the longest. So i don't get too specific about The CW. Pepper Dennis was the last series to premiere on The WB. Just Legal was the last series to have a new episode shown on The WB. I also watched 177/178 episodes of Charmed first time around. I missed one episode due to a scheduling error with the local station that was doing first-run syndication of it because the Canadian network it had been on had dropped it for the 4th season. The Bedford Diaries could have been a gem for the network but Ostroff had no intent of picking it up so The WB kinda just let it fizzle. In its final week it had 2 eps back to back and they were the second and last ranking episodes of the week. Ouchies. Worst decision ever though is not renewing young americans. Look around. True i had to expand the wp article and there is a person who has further ideas but it is other things. The fan forum for the show has been continuously going for more than a decade since the show was cancelled. The forum has over 200K posts. Anything you ever wanted to know about the show you can find there. There hasn't been an English language broadcast of the show in almost ten years. On tvshowsondvd.com it is the 278th most requested show, 46th among shows not yet released on dvd. When a show gets that high up in the list normally the rights holder is all over it preparing a release. Not with young americans. It has hovered in the range of 50th for a few years now ever slowly going closer to # 1. I have 3 completely unique versions of the show from places. It is the most fan-bootlegged show of the 21st century. And there are no plans for an official release. The show is 8 episodes. If you count the original pilot and the 3 crossover eps with Dawson's Creek it becomes 12 episodes. The bad guy on BONES two weeks ago was one of the cast members of young americans. You probably know of Ian Somerholder for his starring role in Vampire Diaries. Biggest mistake The WB ever made in not renewing young americans. You can see some of the promo clips at http://www.vidiot.com/YoungAm/ though do note it is slow to load because the site is by design very video-heavy and so even loading a page can be slow if thousands of other people are watching clips. He has a few nice rants about The CW and UPN having episodes that come in at less than 40 minutes - the show is interrupting the commercials :P If you like Doctor Who you should check out his guide. Last i checked it was complete through the specials but not series 5. Very nice.
Perhaps it would be better to email me if you wanted to go any further as this is kinda stretching the acceptability of user talk pages. ;) O and his take on CBS and The CW and snipes is priceless.

It was still good w/out them... But I think it would be good if they returned. I hope I still like Smallville then. As I bought I've got nine seasons on DVD now :/ As for NCIS, I watch it, but I live in the UK so the advertisements would be different. Eesh, it seems there's absolutely no love for Ostroff. Maybe when she leaves we'll get a new ST spin-off? Or a new season of DSN I'd love (I'm dreaming, right? haha). Not a fan of Doctor who, I enjoyed season 1, but then Christopher Eccelston left... I couldn't get back into it. I can't really say anything bad about The CW, as I think there's lots of gems that nobodys gives a chance. However, Dawn seems to keep the shows she likes, and get rid of the ones she doesn't :/. PS. Yes, you do write a lot, but I like having a lot to read and I don't think there's a limit to what you can write :) Jayy008 (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I almost gave up on Doctor Who because of Christopher. David is why i am still a fan. Christopher was just really bad casting. I guess you would get different advertising if you don't watch NCIS on CBS :P Ostroff may be a female long-term tv top executive but she had driven two networks to the bottom of the pile; even the Spanish network does better than The CW many nights. It is just sad how far she can sink things and nobody cares to stop her. And i just found out that The Kennedys (TV miniseries) has a new home in the US. It was made by everyone's most hated production company Muse (the Being Human remake, The Last Templar). It was made for History Television (the Canadian channel) with the oversight and additionally for History channel (the American one). When the US broadcast plans went all wonky it was still to be shown starting 6 March in Canada. Now today there is a new broadcaster for the US and apparently part of his deal is to screw over the Canadian broadcast. In thanks for standing by the production company through some rough weeks of uncertainty the payback from the production company to the Canadian broadcaster is a big screw you, no more world premiere for you! I have been a fan of Muse and their works for almost 13 years now. They have always made things that are just non-conventional enough to actually be interesting. Their show This Is Wonderland - i am the only person to have recorded the entire show in its first run broadcast. The last few weeks i have been popping in here and there to remove all of the overt claims of being American from all of their productions (just because some US channel showed it must be American :( ). On my own site i have been promoting upcoming and encore broadcasts of their programming. Today i find out they sold out to some petty US cable channel that is only available to about 1/7 of the United States. It is like Ostroff is the new CEO of Muse. Not that she is but this is something she would do. A DS9 revival will not be coming soon to a CW near you. Those shows are not cheap and one thing The CW is is cheap. But the dvd releases of their tv shows are soooooo expensive compared to any one else. Anyway, i go cry now and plot and scheme to destroy Muse :(

Lol, you speak a lot of sense. I don't even think Ostroff leaving will rescue The CW now. All the new shows look awful, they've picked up four new shows, all bad. I guess I'll be shortly abandoning the network soon too. And that's a shame about the dvd releases, CW releases are the same price as other networks here in the UK. Jayy008 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically it is the Warner Bros. series that are more expensive - Gossip Girl, One Tree Hill, and The Mentalist tend to be $8 or $12 more than other new releases. If you have enjoyed Smallville so far, and buying 9 seasons has me thinking you do like it, then you will probably enjoy it. I come from just the edge of having a different Superman tv show in the back of my childhood memory and so i can't help but compare them at times. I know it was a total failure on The CW but if you want a cute, realist, fun comedy about getting married young then you might want to consider 18 to Life. It is a Canadian show that was mercilessly ripped to pieces by the American critics when it debuted on The CW six months after its Canadian premiere but it is a modest hit here in Canada on CBC and last i looked you could buy the first season for $20 + shipping from the CBC store. It is kind of the antithesis of Gossip Girl. Should you like it then you could maybe find something to do to further expand the article on it. :) I liked my critical reception write-up so much i made it a blog post on one of my sites. I am not sure what four new pick-ups on The CW you speak of but if one of them is Shedding for the Wedding then yes, it is bad. Whomever replaces Ostroff will have to deal with what she sets as the schedule for September 2011 but come January 2012 The CW will begin to show signs of what new direction it will be going under new leadership.
I haven't really watched any other Superman's, so Tom Welling is the only one I can see in the role, so it suits me. I saw the ratings for "18 to Life" when it premiered on The CW and it did extremely well without having lots of promotion, they pulled it and wanted to give it a better shot, which I've still yet to see. I know I won't like it, I don't like comedies to be honest. Shedding for the Wedding looks awful, awful, and more awful. But I mean the development slate. I'm looking forward to the Zombie drama, but nothing else. I'm excited to see the direction they'll go, but I'm going to lap up as much Gossip Girl and 90210 as I can before she leaves. Jayy008 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Well clearly our tastes differ greatly. It is why you don't often find me at 90210. Hadn't looked at development. Honestly not sure where to find it for The CW. Not into zombies so if that is the best they have to offer then .... i miss The WB.
I didn't seek it out, I just enjoy Michael Ausiello's website for info on each network. I miss The WB too, they created One Tree Hill, my favourite show. I think they would have paid Chad what he wanted to stay too. Jayy008 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

detroit 1-8-7

"further to reading the references before saying they are fake how about realise that i created and wrote most of the article as well as being one of the main writers for the main article"

Editing or creating an article does not make you own the article. Im not sure what you are are talking about me "targeting" your edits, don't be paranoid. I reverted the air dates because they changed with the delay, from the scheduled date. It is original research (which is not allowed on wikipedia) to assume it will air at another date the next week without providing an accurate UP TO DATE source on it. Its also not an "original air date" until it actually airs. until it does.. it is a tentative air date that can change due to a whole bunch of reasons, such as the last two weeks the show was bumped. Another editor has also reverted you, explaining this quite clearly in the edit summary, yet you continue to re-add the info anyway despite what other editors feel.. and original research in the comments of the article don't make up for that. Again, creating the article does not mean you now own and have full editorial control over it. The fact is.. the dates are not original airdates they are scheduled or tentative air dates.. thats a big difference. wikipedia is not a crystal ball. also your reverting the tvbythenumbers info is innaccurate as just like a sourced reviewer reviewing the show has varied opinions so does tvbythenumbers method of determining possible cancellation, which are based on the numbers provided by nielson which the networks use to determine wether to keep a show and are just as valid as what joe blow at the times thinks of the show.. Hope this helps, no Im not targeting your posts, you are but another name among thousands on here I see every day..I had to look at the articles edit history to even see who you are -Tracer9999 (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at the reference some time. The reference contained the updated schedule. The old reference for the original schedule was retained in a comment with the note that the episode schedule had changed so anyone editing could know of both the new and the old reference. If someone doesn't read the note or the dates of the references but tells me they are inappropriate then yes i am most unimpressed. Own the article? No. Have malicious intent? One would think the creator and a main contributor would not be adding fake info if she is trying to get them to GA and FL respectively. Crystal ball policy applies to things unsourced and unlikely to happen. ABC updates their schedule faster than i keep up with it. Those are the times when other people come in and essentially let me know i need to go look because they change something. I looked and you know what i found. ABC had still the 14th & 15th episodes scheduled for the 8th and 15th of February. That would be so not covered by the Crystal ball policy. As for targetting, you revert my contributions. You did it again. The dates are referenced it is not original research. Both of you are wrong. Try reading the references some time. Where do you think the titles, writers, directors come from? They come from the references. So do the air dates. Accordingly i have again reverted your edits for being disruptive.

Category:Television programs by season

Now, join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5#Category:2010-11_Television_program_seasons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Thanks for telling me. I had the episode typed out but computer shut off before I could save it. By the way, I really like your name also, reminds me of Alice In Wonderland.

Murdoch Mysteries

I don't supposed you know or can find out the U.K. airdates for seasons 1 & 2? After all, there's a place for them, so it would be nice to fill in the blanks. GiantTiger001 (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw part of the pilot back in 2008 but I only really became interested in the show a few days ago. If the information is out there stuck in the interwebs i should be able to find it. It would seem that the alibi website has not been archived so this might be a bit more tricky. And a fun adventure. On a similar matter, you have listed in the episode list the CITY CKAL CKEM CKVU dates for season 1 even though they are all 4 days after the CHMI air dates. That would be why the first date in the infobox is 20 January and in the episode list it is 24 January.
So series 2 began on the same day in the UK [10] but i don't know about taking the month of April 2009 off so i will have to find more info. It is a start.
According to the fans on the alibi boards the show started there on 19 February 2008 [11] Considering alibi overwrites their content with each new season they won't have an episode guide with dates available anywhere but by extracting it from the posts on the boards.
So i didn't quite find all of it yet but i did a bit of season 2 and some other stuff as you might notice. I'm only on episode 8 myself so i can't really write episode summaries for any season let alone all of them so for now i have continued to omit that whilst otherwise upgrading & updating the articles a little. Since the movies do not have their own article i have worked them in to the episode list in manner like other shows that begin with a free-standing tv movie. I also referenced the release dates for the DVDs and BD for all seasons in all regions because that is just one of those things that is expected to remain referenced even when it moves from future to past. The episode list numbering was revered because the template creates a link to the number used in the |EpisodeNumber= so that has to be unique to the page in order to link to it from the main article or an entry on the list of characters. This comes in very handy when you get a larger article like Flashpoint or NCIS and you want to mention something about a specific episode in the production or critical reception sections.
Me = Canadian tv junkie who somehow managed to miss this show for years. I tend to work with older or more obscure American shows and some Canadian ones. Among my better examples are Detroit 1-8-7 and Young Americans (TV series) though i have dabbled in many others. I could probably work with you to improve Murdoch Mysteries if you want my more ongoing involvement. The one thing i would ask is that you not remove the authors from the references as they are supposed to be there. Cheers

Why not follow Smallville's example for guest stars? Also, maybe you could create pages for all three Murdoch Mysteries movies and put the information you want for them there, including the DVDs.

As for the production information, it does not belong anywhere but under "Production". The list of episodes is just that. A list of episodes.

The DVDs did not have references for past release dates until now, so please don't add them back. They're not needed. Yes, I know *some* shows have them, but not all.

I only asked you to find out the airdates in the UK for seasons 1 & 2, nothing else. You're the one who decide to add more on your own. It's fine as is, long before you or I started adding to the show's information. GiantTiger001 (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because the references had been removed doesn't mean that they should not be put back. Just because other shows have them incorrectly removed is not justification for removing them; it is cause to go add them back to where they were removed.
If you think it was fine as it was then you really have extremely low standards. I got involved there because the articles are essentially pathetic excuses for proper articles. As for what you asked me to do versus what i actually did - too bad. I plan to do a LOT more.
As for the movies, there was a page for it. It was merged into the article on the tv series since the broadcaster treats it as continuous.
I see you again removed all of the content. It is yet again going back.

First it's "you're", because last I checked, the show wasn't "mine". Second, I'm trying to add the movies on here, since you won't, even though I asked you too. GiantTiger001 (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the first TV movie, so that's one down, two to go, with proper airdates for all three. As for the episodes, so what if it's "Stand alone"? Many shows on here have for their episodes. I've already suggested to you that you change it to be more like Smallville for the guest stars. Production information isn't needed. There's a place for production information, which is basically what you're putting above season 3 and I have a place for guest stars I created. Also, why only season 4, not season 1-3? I don't understand why season 4 is so different from the other seasons? Please, check out Smallville's episode information, before chaning again and follow that show for a guide line for all *four* seasons. GiantTiger001 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, um no. How about you look at it and realise the construct of that page. They are not the same. There are individual season articles for Smallville. Removing appropriate links, changing links from correct specific articles to disambiguation pages, and censoring the article to the removal of the tv movies is never going to stop is it? If you haven't noticed you are vandalising the articles via censorship because you don't want mention of the Peter Outerbridge episodes/tv movies even though they are treated as part of the continuity by the broadcaster of origin.

Award template content

I have responded to your comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities

Hi Deliriousandlost. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), you may be interested in Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

So long as it includes me... no, so long as it doesn't include me... ah, maybe i will go look later. Thanks for letting me know. It is more of a reading interest of mine than an editing interest.

spoilers

Its probably not a good idea to post spoilers to the show in your edit histories and comments. Not everyone watches episodes on the network at the listed airtime and had I not already seen it..I would probably be ticked off to that in my watchlist. The object of wikipedia is not to be used as a soapbox to give your opinions on a show, or how you feel about anything that happens on the show, or your hopes for the show in the future.. You might want to stick with a simple..updated to current ratings as the edit history comment instead of adding your opinions, which not be mean, other editors don't really care about. The network has a forum on thier website for fans to sound off. just sayin. might want to leave opinions to there. -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't read the edit summary that goes with this then. If there is a spoiler in the edit summary it is also in the content of the article. Your choosing to read the edit history whilst not reading the article is entirely your choice.

House episode articles

You have voiced your opinion at Talk:List of House episodes and left a comment about the scope of the AfD on the AfD, but have not yet voiced your opinion about the proposed AfD. While not required it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Xeworlebi (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, i had forgotten about the AfD. I didn't want to suggest making the nomination comprehensive at the same time i voiced my opinion as it might be rather non-beneficial. I watch House in 7 or 8 episode chunks every few months on a cold, rainy day.

Guest Stars

If you're Canadian, how is you don't know half the people I've added as guest stars on Murdoch Mysteries. I've added a ton of them, with more to come. Didn't you watch Road to Avonlea or The Campbells or even Emily of New Moon?

Actors who have had guest appearances on Murdoch Mysteries.

Paul Amos, Lally Cadeau, Nicholas Campbell, Callahan Connor, Dmitry Chepovetsky, Rosemary Dunsmore, Ephraim Ellis, Lisa Faulkner, Victor Garber, Kate Greenhouse, Stephen Harper, Leslie Hope, Stuart Hughes, Peter Keleghan, Ashley Leggat, Stephen McHattie, Patrick McKenna, Anastasia Phillips, Paul Rhys, Michael Seater, Peter Stebbings, Simon Williams GiantTiger001 (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You want to download Road To Avonlea? I could upload it for you. I uploaded the image used in the RTA infobox. By the time Emily of New Moon came out i was a bit older than its target audience and never really got into it. I have seen most of The Littlest Hobo and much of the classic Mr Dressup though that show continued well into my 20s. I am also one of few people to have a complete copy of This Is Wonderland and Living In Your Car. I have Wonderfalls from FOX in EDTV rips, on official DVD, on VHS from Global, and on VHS from VisionTV. Until a short time ago Murdoch Mysteries was the only current Canadian prime time drama i wasn't watching. If you want to compare there is a good chance i would win. Are you watching The Kennedys? That is one of my niches... shows that people THINK are American but are really Canadian. The other niches i tend to work with are Canadian shows. slightly older cancelled American shows that have been neglected, and obscure crime dramas from wherever i find them. I also do some indie music but not much since it is inherently an inappropriate topic for Wikipedia. Noöne said i don't know the people listed as appearing in Murdoch Mysteries, but some of them are not really meeting wikipedia:notability. And speaking of policy, the list of guest stars page you created is not really in keeping with any policy, rule, guideline, or anything else but does actually break a few of them. I am trying to not come across as the mean bully but it is proving a difficult task. I'm not picking on Murdoch Mysteries or yourself. If someone else were to remove links and references and content from Lost Girl and i noticed it then i would approach it much like i have with Murdoch Mysteries and yourself. I realise you first asked me about UK air dates but that is because i did some editing of my own desire and you thus found me. If you had never asked me to look for UK air dates i would have soon done so on my own curiosity. The Peter Outerbridge movies could probably each have their own article if enough info can be found with reputable references to support it. The movies as a collective are not really worthy of their own article as they are only grouped as a collective on their own for DVD release; they function more like a 3-part pilot for the series. Since Citytv treats them as part of the continuity of the whole having competing articles is a bit foolish and not quite in line with rules of Wikipedia. I could direct you to ever rule and policy and guideline every time but that is going nowhere. One link in the infobox and one link in the prose. Writers, directors, and guest stars are typically linked once per season. Red links are allowed and even encouraged in cases such as Jonny Harris. In the last month i have seen him in 2 tv shows. I do believe he has been in a few others as well as a few of the stand-up comedy shows on CBC. He should have an article any time now.

The Kennedys and date formatting

Hi. My apologies for you having to go back and change the date formatting for The Kennedys miniseries article. I was working off of memory from what I thought I knew of the Manual of Style regarding date formats. I should have actually looked it up first (my bad ;-). Lhb1239 (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There's the rub. It is made by, for, in, and with funding from Canadian entities. The only reason it didn't première in Canada is because Shaw is both a producer of the miniseries and the domestic broadcaster and Hubbard Broadcasting was the only American company really interested in buying rights to the series. But only if they got the world première for it. Shaw was to première The Kennedys on 6 March but instead thought the income and face-saving from being able to sell it in the USA was worth conceding the world première. That is the short background on how it is a Canadian series. Articles on things Canadian can go either way for the date, determined by the first major contribution or the first to use a full date. If you look at the page history you will find it was i who made both the first really big edit and was the first to include a date. Here is my first edit to it. [12] The subject of the article is the mini-series. The subject of the mini-series is the Kennedy family. Many tv shows that get articles when they are still "forthcoming" or in pre-production end up being called American shows because Variety or The Hollywood Reporter says that ABC or NBC has picked it up. Most of the time they are accurate but every once in a while a Canadian show makes its way onto tvs in the USA.

NCIS: Los Angeles (season 2)

This edit summary is somewhat hypocritical given that in this edit you restored an unsourced episode ("TITLE CONFIRMED BY BARRETT FOA" is NOT a reliable source or a citation) and at least one of the citations that you removed is valid. I'm sure that the IP was unhappy with you "putting back in incorrect data because you are too lazy to check it and too rushed to care" Please use more appropriate and more civil edit summaries in future. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Any lecture from you about edit summary useage is a joke. How many issues do i have with you over your one letter or one word edit summaries that are so cryptic or misleading and you think that they are entirely appropriate.
call it a slip of the mouse between undo and rollback and realising as i released the button that i had ended up with the wrong one and trying to get it all sorted quickly to minimalise the impact of a mistake only to think i really ought to leave a note for the guy about the ratings and then end up in a fight over nonsense crap. The reference i removed from Brandon... was so grossly wrong. And i replaced it with the correct information. As to the reference for Australian ratings i do also believe that is incorrect but i am now out of edits for the day thanks to fighting with the anonymous person. The grossly incorrect Canadian data got a rollback-that-was-to-be-undo when i saw it because it was soooooooooooooooooooo wrong. I was to fix that and then go through the Australian ratings in a subsequent edit if needed. In comes IP to fight with me and use up my edits. Result is the Australian data is apparently only for Sydney; but i never liked that source and wanted to review it to make sure it was ok. Being out of edits i just put it back in with the correction to the Canadian ratings to yet again remove the grossly wrong data that the anonymous person had felt to again put back in. If Brandon... hadn't done consecutive edits to the article and/or if i had seen it in time. I was rushed enough to care about removing the grossly incorrect data he put in the article. Every time the anonymous user put it back in i rushed with great care to again remove it. Titles shmitlesblah you and i fight over that any time i do anything with them so no matter what i did with it i knew it would not go well. Ratings you don't do and that is where my concern lies. The information i inadvertently put back in was at least not wrong if not so well sourced. The person i was fighting with was taking out the poorly sourced information and inserting incorrect information elsewhere in the article and didn't know it and didn't care to look into why i kept removing it. I gave up writing the content there otherwise there would be decent episode summaries and more to the articles. But the ratings i still tend to from time to time as noöne else does regularly bother with it and as seen today when someone does it tends to be all wrong. Brandon... added in what he claimed to be the ratings for the episode before the data for said episode was released. It came out about 24 hours ago from my writing this; Brandon... added it well more than a day ago. I think this is sufficiently long enough for you to entirely dismiss without reading but the next paragraph has some use if you wish to continue.
Also, thank you for breaking the implied agreement to not associate with each other. Drmargi chased someone over to a place i go to to avoid Drmargi so that haven is now gone. When that show comes back in season in little over a month surely i will have to leave it as it is a cable crime show made by FOX (which is where i have most every other time clashed with Drmargi). Great irony or not, i actually am more in agreement with the person that Drmargi kept reverting everywhere than i am with Drmargi and yourself regarding column headings for episode numbering. Yes, i find the MOS to be the problem. What you and Drmargi and the MOS want results in ridiculously wide column headings for very narrow content of the columns. The other extreme is to completely ignore everything and use two symbols that to most people mean exactly the same thing and are thus of no benefit. I don't like yours/MOS's standard and i don't like the one being put into common use either. I see no difference between No. and as they are both archaïc ways of abbreviating number, while # is a more modern and common in my lands way of abbreviating number so if one abbreviation is acceptable and others are not then OMG gimme gimme fried chicken. There apparently is no middle ground compromise as the only agreement the majority share is that what i prefer is the most egregious of them all. You might not even know the show exists but i am going to chance pointing it out to you should you actually read this as it has a heading style i don't use anywhere else but in looking at it i find it works. List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes. The other person who is involved there greatly disagrees with me about everything you could possibly imagine - he is against links and is in favour of stubs over C class. But we do agree on one thing. The column headings for the episode numbering. It is an example of an alternative that half is in compliance and half flaunts the MOS but, in my opinion, is completely functional without being drawn out with excess language like most of my talk page comments are.
As to what you are sure about how the anonymous user felt, that is nice. I am sure you are too lazy to have checked what Brandon... added a couple of days ago but you were all over it when you saw i was fighting with someone to remove what he had done. Nice to know you still watch out for me and trust everyone else enough to less gross errors slide right on in and remain. It makes me feel all warm and cuddled.
Cheers
 :) You can write :) Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(Un)ambiguous article titles

How exactly is 2003/2011 ambiguous? I'm also not sure why the fact that they are both Canadian is relevant to that. They would be ambiguous if lets say the 2003 show were still on the air, but that's not the case. Someone typing in looking for the show would most likely first end up at King or King (TV series), depending on there search, and navigate from there. Hat-notes are for navigational (finding) purposes, so that people who end up at the wrong article can be guided to the correct one. In this case, someone looking for the 2011 show will not type "King (2003 TV series)" and expect to find the 2011 one, and vice versa. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Hat-notes are for navigational (finding) purposes, so that people who end up at the wrong article can be guided to the correct one." And that is exactly why i revert every time i see you remove it. People who search for the 'Canadian King show' (or like phrase) will potentially land at either of them and there lies the ambiguity for which the hat-note serves its purpose. You seem fixated on the idea that people will search for it by year when it is just a probable they find out about that great Canadian show called King and come looking for it. The older show is still available on some kids cable channels from what i understand of it (not too interested in it myself but repeats of kids shows can live on as there is a high turn-over in the audience). Now do they want the kids show or the cop show? Both are titled King. Both are Canadian shows. And i am pretty sure both are still shown somewhere. You make my point for me and simultaneously summarily dismiss it and that confuses me.
You're entirely misreading me. If people search "Canadian King show" they'll most likely click the second result which is the disambiguation page, which contains all the info for someone to choose kid show / cop show. They'll probably not scroll down for the 14th and 15th result. You actually make my point, people do not search by year, they search by name and will end up at the dab page which will guide them to the correct place. As I said no-one is going to search for "King (2003 TV series)" if they're looking for a new show, or even when looking for the old one, they'll most likely search for "King (TV series)" which gets them the dab page. I don't know what someone would need to search for to get only one of the shows as a result and not the dab article and only the one they aren't looking for, which is why this hat-note serves no purpose, no-one will end up at either article on there first click, they'll end up at the dab page. Xeworlebi (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
You assume people don't read search results teases before picking one of them. In looking for references i typically have to read dozens of pages of search results looking for my desired information because i couldn't figure out the most accurate key words. Such is a habit i have developed because of Wikipedia. I am at least amused you think people who read Wikipedia would so certainly not do such a thing. For developing such a habit because of Wikipedia i am inclined to find great value in the hat-note that you so are against for being useless. As to what would give you search results that exclude the desired result while also excluding the disambiguation page.... i present to you "Toronto King show" The kids show was made by Decode Entertainment which is now known as DHX Media and is based in Toronto. If someone were looking for information on children's animation programming from Toronto they might not find King all that easily without the hat-note.
I don't assume that at all, I actually doubt it but I do assume people search for simple stuff like "King", "King TV show", "King TV series", etc. and not such a well thought out/searched for input string. Your example is extremely unlikely and rather artificially created and searched for just to give an example. Why would someone search which such a string? Congratulations I guess, you found one of the most unlikely search inputs ever. Xeworlebi (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
You asked and it was the first thing that came to my mind as a possible scenario in which the disambiguation page would fail to be sufficient. If you want to call that artificially created then either that is your fault for asking in the first place or it is a stab at me for thinking of it. Hint, hint... how do you think i found out about the cop show in the first place? It was on google that i searched. I believe the words were "Toronto Indian Grove show". It would be a lot easier if Indian Grove had a website but they don't so every 7 or 11 months i would google them to see if they have a new show. When i googled in early November i ended up hitting news that came out that day once i got through all of the completely unrelated results about Toronto and Indians and groves and First Nations stuff. Then i waited not quite 6 months to see if anyone else would create the WP article. Indie tv shows often require such searching in order to justify creating a WP article. It is not like when the ABC up-fronts in May happened and that very day sprung up a collection of new 3 sentence tv stub articles. Those are the easy ones to create; the references are just oozing out of google for you to pick from.
Since you might read this, my idea to clear out most of the Americanisms from Flashpoint because reciprocal shows, what few there are, are not so saturated with Canadian stuff. The CSI franchise was co-made by Alliance Atlantis for like 7 years and has minimal mention of things Canadian. I want to do like that with Flashpoint but my proposal last i looked had no response on the Flashpoint talk page. Since the last thing i need is a bunch of people complaining that i am making the article too-Canadian i asked first. Week by week, press release by press release, tv promo by print ad, CBS makes it all the more confusing with their alt-universe presentation of it which people try to merge into the Canadian and well just read it and tell me if you think it makes sense, flows, etc., or not.
I find that quite extraordinary, you appear to (or at least assume others will) use this encyclopedia to find new stuff as opposed to looking for a specific item, which is really the purpose of an encyclopedia, just like a dictionary is to find the explanation to words and not to learn new ones. I guess it's not that big of a deal, but there are many shows disambiguated by year which have no hat-note, and this hasn't, to my knowledge, been ever a problem. The Flashpoint part is kinda all over the place and not easy to follow your meaning (the text here). I agreed previously with you that the Flashpoint article isn't very good and could use some serious work, I would definitely support any and all improvements to that article. As I said previously the production section is more broadcast info then production and could use a good restructuring. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
1) I read a pocket Oxford Dictionary on my lunch breaks in high school once i finished reading KJV Bible and select Shakespeare because they proved to be a great way to learn new words i would almost likely never use again; 2) Random page. What do you think it is for? 3) When i was really young and the internet was still in Al Gore's secret lab i had encyclopædia, two different sets. They were regular reading. Close my eyes and run my finger over the top of the books and wherever my finger nail caught a page that is what i took off the shelf and read.
I read the Flashpoint article because my mum really enjoys the show and she asked me to download an episode she caught the last few minutes of. It was confusing then and it was about a year ago. I eventually figured out what episode she wanted and then found it for her. In doing so i constructed a nice little table of CTV, CBS, Scene, and P2P so i wouldn't get duplicates. It grew from there. I thought CBS would call it season 4 so i added the US dates for seasons 2 & 3 to the list on WP hoping to curb the perpetuating of the CBS alt-universe creep into the articles. Yesterday i saw a promo in which CBS calls it season four. I sent a few choice tweets at CBS. CBS is pushing it to the point of making it impossible to reconcile things and the only solution is to discard all of it. Or create a second article "CBS presentation of Flashpoint (TV series)". :P I had asked you about the DVD listings in the series over-view but it is just a tiny part of the bigger mess. CSI Las Vegas was co-made by and distributed in Canada by Alliance Atlantis for its first 6 or 7 seasons. I think CSI Miami was also co-made by Alliance Atlantis. Such involvement with CSI is comparable to that of CBS's involvement with Flashpoint yet the Flashpoint article is full of CBS-related stuff and the CSI articles contain minimal content relating to Alliance Atlantis and Canada. The American show with Canadian ties has almost no mention of the Canadian connexion but the article on the Canadian show with an American connexion is filled with every tiny detail that could be mentioned about the American connexion. Most American prime time shows are simultaneously shown in Canada but none of their articles include in their intro that 'desperate housewives premiered on abc in the USA and on ctv in Canada' but rookie blue says it is on a foreign channel in its intro. I bring up inconsistencies like that and i am anti-American and grossly bias in my point of view and get told the double standard is not only acceptable but to be expected and appreciated because, to paraphrase a British show, 'the only way is american'.

production codes

We knew they had to be wrong, because "Dominion" and the first part of the finale shared a production code and that couldn't be. It's good that you saw the actual code on the screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

dude, that was part of the note i just left on the season talk page. Along with other points. one has to have a little fun here or she could go insane from all of the fighting. The picture is from the WGN signal on Shaw here in Calgary. It is an actual picture of my tv taken with my iPhone's crappy camera. When not put through such a camera it doesn't look that bad. I swear.