Dear Ophois you have nominated Tommy Knight.jpg for deletion but the license creative commons is correct? Unless you can see any obvious problem and its a free image. sfxprefects (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to apologize for my speculation, I didn't know that was bad, but that makes sense. Thanks for correcting me.James81187 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to remind you that Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. And i think having an entry for an unseen(?) character with a few facts is not so good. I disagree with this kind of entry. do you believe we have to put it in the talk page before it remains in the main article or not?
Secondly, what about the characters shown on Suresh's map then? Can we also have an entry like "Tenths of other people with powers" because it was mentioned in the show? Friendly, Magioladitis 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how having an entry for a character mentioned on the show has to do with the crystal ball rule. But I understand your argument and think it should be discussed, but I think it should remain in the article until then, since I removed the speculation from the entry earlier today. Ophois 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... actually, the format *is* to have quotation marks around the episode titles, even in the infobox. Episodes that do not have that formatting need to be fixed, and not the other way around. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, because I don't remember ever seeing a wikipedia page with quotes in that box. Only a few Heroes pages had the quotes, so I was making them uniform. Ophois 00:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey... you might want to read through this note I left on the Heroes project page. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 06:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the typo with the excess brackets. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify fairness of tone, which states: Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization -- when you start a sentence with "an Emmy award winning," or "an Emmy nominated" show, you are subtly applying a positive light to the show, when we are supposed to be taking a neutral stance on Wikipedia. Also, it gives favoritism to Emmys, which are not the only awards the out there, nor the only ones Heroes has been nominated for; the show has won several awards that were not Emmys. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you did a lot of good work fixing the article today...but I sort of went and rewrote the whole thing, because it was in dire need of salvation. Apologies for not warning you sooner (I started the rewrite a few days ago). --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits in the past few minutes to the intro to the article are pretty good, showing balance and adherence to NPOV. Qworty 20:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to say, impressive job on the Jena Six page. 129.81.64.28 02:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reinserting the word "alleged". The beating is not in dispute. Some particular aspects of it, and the charges arising therefrom are in dispute, but the beating itself is clearly not in dispute. Every news article supports this, and the quotes from the teens also support this, when they said it was "just a schoolyard fight". They're clearly not disputing that it happened or not. Please stop reverting this, you are inserting the wrong word. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a specific example of one of the six stating that? Ophois 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[1] "The DA is trying to use my son as a scapegoat for these ridiculous charges," Jones said. "He knows there's no proof showing that my son and those other kids were trying to kill that boy. It was a simple high school fight. How can you turn that into attempted murder?""
See, they're not disputing that the attack happened. They're disputing the charges. Now, please remove the "alleged" word. It's factually incorrect.
See also, the interview iwth Democracy Now: "AMY GOODMAN: Explain the lead-up to the fight and then how you understand the fight taking place, Marcus Jones.
MARCUS JONES: Well, my understanding of how the fight took place is Barker was telling some of the boys earlier that morning, calling them nigger and telling them about the fight that happened the previous weekend now. So the majority of the creation of the fight was due to Justin Barker's racial remarks. "
⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 21:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't view the Chicago Tribune one. The Snopes has big mistakes in it, such as saying that the incident occurred during a fight at lunch. I'm not denying that the incident didn't happen. I'm stating that it is disputed that they were involved. A quote from one of the accused fathers doesn't mean that all were involved.Ophois 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You restored the rally section to an earlier version, however; I'd like to know how footnote 44 indicates Sharpton, Jackson and King III attended the rally when the article was retrieved on Sept. 17 and the rally occured on September 20? The reference provided says they were planning to attend, and while this might have been good and verifiable prior to the 20th, the reference does provide evidence that the 3 actually attended. I provided an updated reference after the rally occured, however; you removed it, I don't understand this rationale. Rather than restore, wouldn't it have been easier and an exercise in wikietiquette to simply repair whatever error you referred to, but failed to mention in your revert?--Ccson 06:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per our manual of style, please don't wikilink within an article to somewhere else within the article. It's self referential, and is not generally done. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane. 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are excellent suggestions, but that's not the way certain editors have been framing this racist garbage from The Jena Times. They want to incorporate the white-supremacist rantings of that newspaper as though everything it says is the stone-carved word of God. Qworty 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a personel attack. It's just a statement about what Qworty thinks of the source. I think you should put it back. futurebird 04:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of your help with the Helix page. I hope you don't mind I separated them by episode. Your help is appreciated! Thanks,Magkaz 04:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just giving you a friendly heads up that you have reverted the Jena Six article, in whole or in part, 3 times within the last 24 hours. Please refrain from further reverts to avoid being blocked for edit warring, per WP:3RR. If you'd like to discuss your conerns for the article, please feel free to discuss it further on the article's talk page.
Also, I strongly recommend you read, and perhaps reread, the standards for WP:verifiability. Many of the articles cited (perhaps even by you) could be termed blogs due to the formatting of the page, which seems to be the standard you are invoking here (other than the unspoken fact that you simply don't agree with what's being said). However, might I recommend you consider that Wikipedia's standard for verifiability is that it not be self-published, be properly sourced and cited, and/or be subject to a editorial oversight. My references pass muster in all of these cases. Mael-Num 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part where you are getting the info from (and the basis of your argument) is a quote from a message board. If there are any blogs that are currently being cited, please tell me so that I can fix it. Ophois 20:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be having a bit of a reading comprehension problem. As I already said, I can only recommend you read and try to fully understand what WP's standards are, and why they exist.
As to blogs being cited, fully 2/3's of the articles cited could be called "blogs" because they are opinion pieces based loosely (and often incorrectly) on previously done investigative pieces; they offer up nothing in the area of reporting or much oversight because they are essentially opinion pieces that have a snippet of truth that WP editors want to use for their cites, and that's OK. Let's just not kid ourselves and pretend that a "blog" that happens to have been reprinted in the Tribune is somehow not a blog. Mael-Num 21:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are called editorials by columnists for newspapers or news sites. They aren't a blog that anyone can post to and that lists their "reliable source" (which you also call it) as a message board. Ophois 21:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poe-tay-toe, poe-tot-oh. My source is a thrice-published article that quotes a resident of the town of Jena, LA. You're claiming it's merely a message board because what's being said conflicts with the POV you've slowly worked into this piece. Mael-Num 21:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what you included? The whole basis of your "decoration" argument is a quote from here. The article you cited even states that. What do you find when you go there? It's a message board, and the quote taken from the said message board is from a user with five posts. Ophois 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The info he was adding wasn't using a reliable source. It was a blog that was quoting a message board. I stated this fact, but he kept reverting his edit back. From my understanding, wiki policy says that it is his burden of proof to prove what he put, which he didn't. After my third revert, I did try to talk on the discussion page, but he once again reverted.
Decline reason:
Sorry, but you should wait it out. I know it can be frusteratiing, especially when another party will not discuss, but it's best just to wait and not revert. You did violate the three revert rule; remember, there is no deadline, so you can always file a request for comment if you need "outside help". — Haemo 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I've had an extensive discussion with Mael-Num about the situation and he has agreed to make no more than one edit without starting a discussion on the reasons for the revert and discussions about the content being removed. I've unblocked you in anticipation that you would be willing to agree to such an agreement. Nick 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
It looks like you've already been unblocked; try and edit. --Haemo 00:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should work now. You've been unblocked for hours, and there is no autoblock on this account.
Thanks. It works now. Earlier my block had been lifted off the username, but the block on the IP address remained.Ophois 02:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking over your talk page, it looks like you might have wanted to include some information on this alluded to character, but might not have been able to find a RS to cite. Just a heads up: I was thumbing through an advance copy of Saving the World:A Guide to Heroes I got a few weeks ago, and there is a chapter which reprints Nikki Stafford's blog entry regarding the finale episode of season 1. Page 167 pretty much sums up everything we know about this guy:
There's only one person in the world that she [Molly] can't find, and this person is even worse than Sylar. If she thinks about this person, the person will be able to see her. Here's our first setup for Season 2.
So, for what it's worth, that blog (and some others) have been reprinted in Saving the World, which would make them fair game as reliable sources as they've been published by ECW Press. Might be worth a look if you're in need of some good cites for any Heroes related articles. Please let me know if there's more info you might want from that chapter, or any others, in case you haven't picked this title up yet. Mael-Num 04:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. BelovedFreak 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure why that is. I asked for some help with the program-y stuff (to get rid of the colors), but simply edited out the filed in the template that needed changing or updating. It might be that the template that was adapted for usage in the Heroes Wikiproject for Heroes' characters didn't use actor. Maybe you know someone who can fix it? - Arcayne(cast a spell) 05:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Were you meaning that I had to change portrayer to actor on each character page? I already did that. I also fixed the template. Thanks for following up, though. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell) 03:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, i changed it from protrayer because its an awkward word, and the word actor is gender neutral and works better. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 06:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then that seems the ideal opportunity to create an infobox that allows for that. Since my OS makes it difficult to make infoboxes, are you up for it? There's a shiny choco-chip cookie in it for you. :D - Arcayne(cast a spell) 03:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful about reverting. You aren't doing anything that the community, at present, doesn't seem to support, but you can still be blocked for it. asyndetontalk 10:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And with this in mind I have warned User:Electrobe for edit warring, I do not wish to issue anymore, and would prefer to see discussion take place prior to any more edits/reversions. If you have any problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khukri 10:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After talking to another admin, I've lifted my original block. You are involved in edit-wars at several articles and broke the three-revert-rule on Nathan Petrelli, Sylar and Niki Sanders. Consider this as a last warning, another revert will lead to an immediate reimplementation of the block. --Oxymoron83 11:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness...you reverted my edit so fast, you didnt even give me a chance to finish. my goodness! I made my edit at 19:58 and you made your edit at 19:58. wow! I didnt even get to complete the changes i was doing. you should slow down. i was restructuring all the sections, but i got reverted right when i started.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are right. good advice. i will do that next time...thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following it, but have grown weary of trying to stop it. I suggest lodging a complaint at WP:AIAV. You can ask to have the page protected and then only registered editors can change it. Of course, all the vandal has to do then is register, but so far he's not seen fit to do so. Good luck. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, make sure to sign and time-stamp warnings left on talk pages. This is almost essential for administrators to evaluate when a user was last warned and if he's vanalized since the last warning. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP appears to be justified in removing the cast, because they aren't the stars. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Actually, I am not an admin. Sorry about any confusion. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 05:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure. While his edits are not appropriate, they aren't really vandalism either. But he is ignoring your warnings. It is difficult to say. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 05:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I have noted a report to WP:AIV regarding this page. In my opinion the edits are not vandalism but content dispute. Whilst I appreciate that another editors opinion on what goes where can be frustrating it is important that all editors remember that the talk page of the article can be used to discuss, and as importantly that there is a three revert rule that needs to be followed. I would suggest that you are both likely to be in breach of that rule and that you both decide to walk away from the page for 24 hours at this time. Cheers. --VStalk 06:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, we need to resolve this dispute on the Supernatural page. I think that we should bring in a moderator to settle this once and for all. (BTW: reporting me for "edit warring" was really lame considering that you were just as guilty as me). I also hardly think that my edits were againt group consensus (only your own), as I have seen many comments that agree with me, including comments about 2 inches above this one. Its not really something that can be compromised about, either they are stars or they are not, and we need to find a solution to this. (ShadowX81 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I'm fine with bringing in a moderator. BTW, I wasn't reporting you for 3RR. If I had specifically wanted to do that, I would have reported you to the report page. I was merely asking for assistance with the issue, either to work out the problem or if that admin saw what you were doing as disruptive editing. And you were going against group concensus, as shown in the discussion page and the edit history of the article. As for the person on this page who you say agrees with you, he is an admin who doesn't watch the show and who, as shown in his comments on this page, based his statement on our compromise that Lauren Cohan and Katie Cassidy go under the Supporting Characters category. Ophois (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just gave a glance at the discussion page, and found 2 people in the discussion who agree with me. You seemed to be the only person in the discussion on your side. Ok, how are we going to resolve this thing? (ShadowX81 (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The only thing I can think of is to bring in a moderator. No offense, but you have it stuck in your head that the actual series shows is irrelevant and that the only thing that matters is what a TV station says. BTW, the CW doesn't update its cast lists. If you look at the Smallville cast list, it still has the list up from Season 6. The station just finished airing Season 7. Ophois (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tv station is part of the reason. First of all, the CW's stie in regards to Supernatural is much better updated than Smallville, just a look at the main show page reveals that. Second of all, Jared and Jenson are listed as starring in every single episode. Katie and Lauren are listed only in thost which they appear. Third, Kripke himself stated that they were not stars, but merely recurring. Fourth, they are clearly main charachters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowX81 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main show page that has Cohan and Cassidy included in the cast photo, you mean? As for Smallville, that photo used works for Season 7, so its understandable why they didn't change it. As for the interview you keep referencing, have you even read it? Nowhere in it does he state that they are not stars. He merely calls them "recurring regulars". Keyword there, "regulars". They're not main characters like Sam and Dean, but they are still stars of the show. Ophois (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for adding all those minor caracers on Supernatural. That must have been alot of work. Good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.106.149 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
As you are the administrators, the decision is fully up to you. However, I don't think that I should be blocked. The editor was making changes against group concensus, as shown in the edit history as other users have also been reverting his edits. I tried to compromise on the discussion page, which he immediately refuses and gave arguments for. When I pointed out the flaws in his arguments, he immediately went back to his illogical argument that TV station that shows the series doesn't list them as stars and that he's going to continue to remove them from the list. Unlike the anon, I edit other articles for wikipedia other than Supernatural, and I'd like to be able to continue editing them this weekend. I apologize for edit warring, and will try and find more solutions. But, as I said, the decision is up to you. Thanks.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Okay, I'm fine with the block remaining. However, is there a way to at least unblock me from discussion pages so that we can go ahead and work the dispute out? Thanks
Decline reason:
Sorry, that's not technically possible. Please sit out the time of your block. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Unfortunately no, you may want to save an admin some time and remove the template. Mww113(talk) 03:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|I may be mistaken, but I think my block is supposed to be removed by now. According to my block log, I was blocked for 48 hours at "10:33, 18 May 2008". Right now, it's 10:54, 20 May 2008. Also, I'm 99.99% sure that the block page that comes up when you try to edit a page said that the block was to expire at the time I just mentioned, but now it says something completely different. Thanks}}
You are correct. You should not be blocked. If you are, please follow the instructions below: Clearing an autoblock
Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:
If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in. Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are. If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-ip|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I've found the block.
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
My memory seems to have failed me here, I was sure that it had been agreed she was not affiliated with Torchwood but it appears that's not the case. Please feel free to revert, although you may have to defend it with other editors. I'm not expressing an opinion either way. --Rodhullandemu 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason it's being removed is because the information is now redundant to what we have in the article. Sceptre(talk) 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out before with others, you need to use the discussion page for matter relating to the article. You are not going to get people to suddenly change their minds by forcing their versions out and offering a two-line edit summary. If anything, it pisses them off and makes them less willing to actually discuss the matter. I say this so folk won't get unduly crabby with you. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits where you reintroduce edits repeatedly after it is reverted repeatedly. The fact that it is being reverted tells you two things: A) you are dealing with someone who is stubbornly unwilling to discuss their reasoning (or continue discussing it) and B) your repeated introduction indicates that you need to convince folk more. BOLD and IAR are all well and good, but not when they create bad blood. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... FYI, we can't use italics for "Crucible" because we do not know if that is the name of the ship (as with the Valiant) or if instead (as is more likely) it refers to the type of ship (as with the TARDIS). --Ckatzchatspy 06:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Considering that in Doctor Who Confidential, it said that Catherine had filmed her last scenes and was leaving Doctor Who, surely Journey's End was her last episode? If she returns, we can just remove that field. ~~ [Jam][talk] 22:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I looked at Casino Royale (2006 film), and it appears you are correct, so I am re-adding the information. Thanks for the note! GaryKing (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Personally, and I'm sure with others, it isn't an entirely big deal and I'm sure a lot of articles use it on an article-by-article basis. GaryKing (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being part of a series does not mean that it is in direct continuity with anything. Rob Zombie's Halloween is part of the Halloween film series. Just like Batman Begins and the Friday the 13th remake are part of the Batman film series and Friday the 13th film series, respectively. That is why the "preceded" and "followed by" sections are based on their chronological order of release, and not where they fall in the series. As Halloween III, by your definition for removal, would need to be removed from Halloween II and Halloween IV, as it has nothing to do with any other film in the Halloween film series. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I don't agree with you, but I don't have the time nor the desire to deal with people like yourself. I regret even coming upon the article and editing it in the first place if it meant leading to the beginning of a possible edit war. I don't care enough about the subject to get into an edit war, but I think that this will probably be brought up again with someone else and you'll have to do a better job of presenting your case than you did with me. I'll just go back to editing Pearl Jam and Soundgarden articles. Good day.-5- (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people like yourself. People who will drag someone else into an argument no matter how wrong they are. I reverted them because I felt that they were bad edits and put it back to the way it should be. But don't worry, I'm done with this. I've gone beyond what I should have by even responding to you. Don't bother responding to me, you can go back to your superhero and sci-fi articles or whatever it is you work on.-5- (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Luke Smith, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 59.167.59.201 (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the table(s) should be formatted as it was before, simply because them combined seems mixed-up and confusing. I think we might need to talk about this on the talk page to get everybody's opinions to get a good consensus on how the table(s) should be formatted. If you do not want to do that, I'll gladly restore it right back to your format. What do you want to do? Sean9500 • Talk • Contributions 03:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that is a spin-off of a spin-off also constitutes being a spin-off of the root (original) program. So, yes, I Love New York, Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School and I Love Money are all spin-off's of The Surreal Life, since this whole cluster of series began with (and escalated from) Flavor Flav being on the show. This is why the All in the Family template includes Good Times and Checking In on it, even though they weren't direct spin-off's of AITF, they were spinoff's of its spinoff's, which still makes them related. Now, with that being said, I am going to revert the Surreal Life template back to the way it was if you've changed it.—The Real One Returns (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I undid the IP because of the unreliable source they were using. The site appears to be someone's blog. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a violation if you're removing original research. Yep, I did further checking and it turns out that the page itself says nothing about Batman Begins. What the IP was doing was showing a page full of the villains that Oldman has played and using that to support the notion that that is what he is well known for (maybe true, but still OR and OR is to be removed on the spot). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When reverting vandalism, please make sure not to revert any good edits which may have been done since. When you reverted I Love Money, among the reverted edits was my addition of a protection template, which I added after semi-protecting the page. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Heroes (TV series). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 05:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To both of you, please stop the edit war; I've protected the page for twenty minutes just so you don't violate 3RR in your haste to revert each other. Ophois, while your revert was entirely appropriate given the lack of verification for the claim about Rose (and definitely not vandalism), please remember that you'd still be considered in violation of 3RR if you'd reverted again. It's easy to forget in the moment, but content disputes rarely exempt the 3RR rules. --Ckatzchatspy 05:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about what you reverted here. The citations were appearing broken on my end and I was attempting to fix them. In the process of doing this, I inserted {{reflist}} in the subsection to test how they looked, but forgot to remove it. In the end, the problem was in the servers I assume because with your revert, the refs still look fine.--Rockfang (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Maya Herrera, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — DædαlusContribs /Improve 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one more note, it is OR as it could be interpreted that the blood was actually a deeper red, and not black. It is this interpretation of slight variations in color that classifies it as original research.— DædαlusContribs /Improve 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tracy, Barbara, Niki, Jessica, and whoever else...[edit]
I don't want to get into an edit war, but I did revert your undoing of my edit.[2] I don't actually care what it says, but we can't say that it is Tracy or Barbara; we don't know that. It could be Niki Sanders returned from the dead, it could be Tracy, it could be Barbara, or it could be a different person altogether. We don't know, so we can't make claims. Observations, however, are fair game.
Also keep in mind that, despite the fact that the doctor the other night said that they were triplets, Niki had a sister in Jessica. For all we know, there could be a whole slew of Ali Larter-portrayed characters on the show. She might as well be a frackin' Cylon. :D
Also, I have no problem with the sentence being reworded further; we just can't say "the woman in the vision was definitely Tracy or Barbara". EVula// talk // ☯ // 23:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has he ever been referred to as "Knox Washington"? If he has, then I guess it would be fine to have it as that. If not, then we should just have it as "Knox" or what it is now, IMO. Ophois (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well now it's Benjamin "Knox" Washington which sounds redundant. Would moving him to just "Knox" be fine? Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, similar to Sylar. Have the heading be Knox, but give full name in his section. Ophois (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is to both of you... there is no reason to edit war over a minor detail. Both of you have exceeded the 3RR guideline; take it to the talk page. --Ckatzchatspy 04:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I copied form the main article because this is the only real information found there. I think the rest of the article has to be deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ophois. Since you are working a lot with the Heroes' articles, I think you have to raise you opinion about this graphoc novel characters in Talk:List of characters in Heroes. Either the table stays or the characters. Having all these details for characters appearing in some pages of a graphic novel it's WP:Undue weight. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to keep the article in disrepair without any sort of reason. Character lists are meant to describe the characters in general, not their entire involvement in the plot. Heroes Wiki is the place for that information. TTN (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you weren't giving their general information. You gave pretty much what was given in their first appearance, and then wiped every other detail, including things like their deaths. Ophois (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their origins and personal details are all that matters. Deaths and the like are covered in the episode articles. TTN (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[3] I thought it was really, really silly to list that she heals thru kissing. I just re-watched the two scenes from "Our Father" though, and sure enough, both times she kisses to heal.
I still think it's silly (and I think the kiss has more to do with the character than the ability), but since the whole reason I removed it was because I thought it was bogus, don't look to me to remove it again. :) EVula// talk // ☯ // 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Padillah (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's nice you are improving the Supernatural articles. In order to upload photos from flickr it's better to create an account in Wikipedia Commons and follow the instructions there.
I checked the first photo but since the owner (CWTV) states "All rights reserved", we are not allowed to upload it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia Commons (commons:COM:U) reads "Licenses with NC (non-commercial use only) or ND (no derivative works allowed to be created) are not OK here. If the image is not OK, consider asking the author to release their work under a free license such as CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution license) or CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike)."
The second photo states "Some rights reserved" and we can upload it in Wikipedia but the person who upload it says it was taken from Misha Collins page and I am not sure about the real copyright status of the photo!
I think the best you can do is to upload a low-resolution screenshot of Castiel that you created yourself. Have a nice day. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with File:Castielinfobox.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Castielinfobox.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are currently in violation of 3RR. I would ask that you immediately revert your last undo in the Peter Petrelli article, and continue discussion. I've reported you for breaking 3RR, but I am willing to retract the complaint if you will self-revert and work within the article discussion to find a consensus. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 03:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for self-reverting. I will withdraw the complaint. In the future, understand that you and I have worked together well in the past; I don't want that to get messed up because we have a current disagreement. Talk to me, feller; my rep is that I am unreasonable, but that's all it is - a rep, not the truth. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 03:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your side and will drop it for now. However, I'm gonna submit to the Behind the Eclipse Q&A and try and get the source for the name. Ophois (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link for that? I will help you try to find a source, as well. I don't care what we put, so long as it isn't based on an interpretation of what someone said in an episode, or from a bad source. Drop me a line and let me know the link. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell) 03:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first I thought it was vandalism, but I'm going to assume it was intended in good faith, but you made an edit on the Supernatural page that included the text "as of 'Criss Angel is a Douchebag'." I'm going to assume that it copy and paste mistake and skip the vandalism warming, just be careful to review your work before publishing it. ---D--- (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oooo, that was an episode title wasn't it, let's clarify that then.---D--- (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that, at least a couple of times, when people have correctly replaced misuses of "whom" as a subject pronoun with "who", you have reverted those changes. "Whom" is an object pronoun, not a subject pronoun. Please see e.g. [4] and [5] for more about this. John Darrow (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks quite a bit better now. You might be able to get User:Theleftorium to take another look at it, to avoid having to wait, if you ask them. One suggestion I would make if I was reviwing the article is to merge the first two sections into one, and cut it down by about three paragraphs, leaving only the most important parts. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For merging, I did this ugly little edit to kind of show what I mean. The Character background section goes in chronological order, so the powers stuff could kinda just be mixed in chronologically as well. I also added the episode title to kinda increase the out of universe feel, although that may not be necessary. You may want to get input from Leftorium or whoever the next GA reviewer is since they may have their own ideas. Totally up to you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Castielwings.jpg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Castielwings.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, Bela needs her lead expanded, and her references formatted (like with Castiel). For the lead, just kinda read through the article and for each section, add 2 or 3 sentences summarizing it in the lead section at the top. For the references, I recommend enabling the User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar in the gadgets section of your preferences. It makes refs pretty easy. Ruby needs a lead expansion, but her refs are looking good.
The amounts of plot and real world information are balanced well. There isn't a standard format for TV characters, so we kinda make stuff up as we go. I think saying
"In the beginning, not much is known about Ruby, a feisty blonde first seen in the season four episode "The Magnificent Seven"."
Instead of
In the beginning, not much is known about Ruby, a feisty blonde first seen in "The Magnificent Seven".
Would help ground the plot summary in the real world. Ruby appears over multiple seasons, so it would be good to say which season each of her episodes came from. Bela only appeared in one season, so I think the beginning of her plot summary should say that, then each sentence like "She next appears in "Red Sky at Morning"" could be like this: "She next appears in the episode "Red Sky at Morning"". This should be done each time an episode is named, and episodes should be named as often as possible. It looks like Bela's Character background's section's first paragraph needs its ep named, for instance.
Hello. You have continually reverted my edits to the Emile Danko section of this page. In your last edit summary, you said something like 'trim it down, don't delete'. Please explain yourself. I have consistently removed information from that section that isn't relevant to Emile Danko which is what I regard as trimming, but you keep putting it back in. Would you mind enlightening me as to what your definition is? 82.37.50.162 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are the facts that he tried to make Parkman into a suicide bomber and has teamed up with Sylar not relevant to Danko? Ophois (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"After the President removes Danko from his position for what he did, he starts investigating Nathan's past and discovers that he can fly." - So? This is just Heroes plot. It doesn't tell us anything about Danko that hasn't already been said plainly.
I've now expanded this, as it allows him to take over the operation.
"prefers to take it to the extreme" - What does this even mean?
I agree, that can be removed.
"he knew she would end up killing an officer in the process, and a government auditor witnesses the murder, prompting the operation to get full funding" - Yes, this is relevant because it demonstrates his tactics, but do we really need this much detail here?
Trim then.
"and allows Sylar to acquire a shapeshifting ability in order to move around undetected" - This isn't about Danko, just more Heroes plot!
It's plot directly related to Danko and his motivations, showing just how far he's willing to go.
"Matt Parkman ruins the relationship to get revenge for the death of his girlfriend, Daphne" - We don't need to know why Parkman has done this here. The part about Daphne can be left out. 82.37.50.162 (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove Daphne. Ophois (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the DVDs? I think they have commentary for the episode that could be used to create a production section that would allow the article to be a GA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately I don't have any of the DVD's. Ophois (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You removed an edit I'd made ("At one point, Claude refers to himself as "Claude Rains," although whether this is intended as a revelation of his real name, or merely as an ironic reference to actor Claude Rains (who played the title character in the classic film The Invisible Man) is open to debate.") and didn't cite a reason. I can't understand why you'd do this, especially considering the neutral tone of my edit versus the heated argument over the character's name. Note how my edit provides information without taking sides in the debate. As I stated on the talk page, which you should have visited before making the edit, "I'm neutral on the debate of whether the article lists "Rains" as Claude's last name. However, IF we do list the character as "Claude Rains," then it really should be noted in the article (and not just in the discussion) that this is a reference to the actor (either as irony on Claude's part or as tribute on the writers' part). I don't think this should be considered speculation -- unless somebody wants to make the ludicrous argument that the invisible man in Heroes has the same name as the actor who played the original Invisible Man just as a pure coincidence." It's one thing for you to think you're right, but to deny there's even a debate is not constructive. All I'm asking is that you consider your actions on Wikipedia before editing willy-nilly just because you feel personally justified -- or at the absolute least list your reasons for your edit. Minaker (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you looked at the edits I made, you would see that I added in that "Claude Rains" is just an alias he goes by and provided a source. And as an editor of Wikipedia, you should know that you can't add in speculation such as you did. You need a source if you want to say it's referencing the actor. Ophois (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how you completely ignore Wiki rules when it suits your fancy, but cite the rules when you think they're in your favor. I did look at the edits you made, and I observed that it wasn't enough to settle the debate. The edits I made provided information that took a neutral POV in the debate; merely acknowledging that there is a debate does not make information speculative. Minaker (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what is your source for the existence of this "debate"? Sorry, but that's original research. Ophois (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, deleting the comments I made on this page is a practice in dishonesty and verifies your bad faith. Second of all, I do not say that the the character's name is in reference to the actor, I say that it COULD BE, and that there is open speculation to the effect. Third of all, to challenge me to find a source for the existence of a debate which you yourself have taken part in further illustrates your own bad faith, your prioritization of argument over resolution, and your failure to properly follow or even understand Wikipedia rules such as Wikipedia:disruptive editing and Wikipedia:gaming the system. 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
First of all, the comments were never deleted... otherwise they'd be gone right now... Anyways, Wikipedia can't be cited as a source, so you're gonna have to find a reliable source on the web that proves existence of the debate. If you keep adding it, you're gonna keep getting warnings. Sorry. And this isn't edit warring. You're adding unsourced data and thus causing a disruption. Ophois (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't play games, there was a whole paragraph I had typed up that was here one moment and not the next. I suppose this was just a "glitch." But even assuming it was, which we both know to be untrue, yes, I understand that Wikipedia can't be cited as a source, but to repeat myself, you are now asking for a source for the existence of a debate that you yourself have taken part in. And you have the audacity to lecture me on causing a disruption? Absurd. By the way, an edit war is an edit war, regardless of whether you think you are in the right for engaging in it. Clearly you need to read up on Wikipedia:disruptive editing and Wikipedia:gaming the system -- although just between you and me, we both know that at this point, you're clearly being disruptive on purpose, so I'm not sure what good this will do. Minaker (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this issue is under administrative review, I'd like to call a truce and let the gods of Wikipedia make their decision. I'll respect and abide by their judgment even if I don't agree with it. We may both think the other's in the wrong, but that's no reason for either of us to hold a Wikipedia grudge. Just my attempt at an olive branch here. Minaker (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, my name's Hunter. I've conducted a GAN review of Bela Talbot. Nice work with the article! Please check it out and I'm sure it will be ready for a pass very soon! — HunterKahn(contribs) 04:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can do another Supernatural GA. Ruby and Bela have passed, in case you missed it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm back now. Yeah, I saw that they passed. That's for your help on them. Anyways, I don't think I have time to do another article at the moment. Ophois (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just drop me a line if want to do something. It would be cool to improve Sam and Dean sometime. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying (and don't get me wrong, I'm not angry about this). I understand why Sharona is not a main character anymore (heck, I have most of the episodes memorized). I just thought that since she was going to be in an episode (in fact, I think she's going to be in two or three episodes) that she should have that listed. Since it's so significant to the show, should her return be mentioned further down the page (in the recurring characters section, perhaps)? Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it should be mentioned in the section about her being replaced by Traylor Howard. Ophois (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me the information was very informative and i think it should stay there to inform Wikipedia users what happened and why the interviews were removed off the internet.Wikipedia is made to inform and that section was doing what Wikipedia does.
On her show Ophois the only guest stars are the ones that got a bumper for there names not everyone that we use on the show was guest starring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Money20002009 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never understood why they didn't make Dr. Kroger a main character. I mean, there are some episodes that the main characters don't even appear in... Anyway, just wanted to ask... if the character isn't listed in the credits, does that mean that they can't be listed on a navigation template? Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the "Universe" section of iCarly I made without any reason I want to talk about that. Please Reply.Skulduggery3 (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be interesting. I don't know if the character has what it takes to be an FA, but we'll see how people feel (one oppose right now). I have a feeling that only Sam and Dean have enough info available to make it to FA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Music of Supernatural requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Aramova (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag, not a valid criteria for music from a TV Series. I have removed a couple of mis-used speedy tags from the editor in question. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ophois, do you think that the episode number format for List of iCarly episodes is settled down. I was going to retarget the episode redirects to individual episode entries via #ep... (a few are done already but some of those are broken, which is what drew me here). I usually take a look at the history to make sure things are stable before digging in, and your reversion popped up between peeks.
Jack identified the error at the source of his creation of that redirect, and it is now in the process of being deleted. (Still wondering about the ep numbering.) -- ToET 12:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be settled down. Someone just removed the series # for the episodes, so I reverted it. As for the redirects, the #ep is for when you use headers. The iCarly episode is in a table, so at the most you would be able to redirect to a season. As far as I know you wouldn't be able to do it to a specific episode in the table.Ophois (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is done automatically for you via "{{ Episode list ...". Check out List of iCarly episodes#ep39 (14), for instance. Cool huh? The only problem is that the links are sensitive to episode number changes, but worse case they just target the head of the article when they break. -- ToET 12:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's awesome. Didn't know about that. Anyways, should be fine. You can put a hidden note in that column explaining not to change it if you want. Ophois (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects have all been retargeted. I wouldn't worry too much about the impact a change in the numbering scheme would have on the redirects as they are easy enough to edit -- I just didn't want to retarget them while they were actively in flux. If you decide five minutes from now that you really want a two column arrangement, it won't perturb me. There is a lot of variation in numbering schemes used, but I haven't seen enough to say what the most common is or what is even considered correct. BTW, you should know that at the moment a reference in the EpisodeNumber parameter breaks the automatic #ep... formation, so I placed a couple of {{anchor}}s to handle List of iCarly episodes#epTV-Movie and List of iCarly episodes#ep40 (15) ("iGo to Japan" and "iDate a Bad Boy"). I brought this up at Template talk:Episode list#Broken #ep anchors with referenced EpisodeNumber. Bye. -- ToET 14:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop moving Rekha's name to the bottom of the cast credits. She is veteran and senior and must be credited first. Shahid • Talk2me 12:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this order is fine by me as he is the main protagonist and plays the title role. Shahid • Talk2me 12:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ophois, I've reverted your recent change at List of Supernatural episodes. Was there anything to that aside from formatting differences? The reason that I changed it back is because you made the season 1 table look different from all of the others. It looks like you updated and copied the table from Supernatural (season 1), which is a good idea content wise but... well, all of the tables on the List of article should look similar. Personally, I don't care which formatting they use as long as it's consistent, so if you're up to changing all of the tables then feel free. — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other tables won't be changed for a while, so yeah, it would be best to keep it the old way for now.Ophois (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I think than this will be of utility for complete the article --Mr-Ej (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, wiki policy is against lists of just music without related information, so I'm just gonna delete that article and integrate the score info into season articles. Ophois (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you write a sentence under each source stating what you have done, so editors can read it. I know you might be new to the whole FAC process but we don't tend to strike other people's comments out of courtesy. So, write what you have done, especially explaining how you have cited the information now you have removed all those sources. Thanks. RB88 (T) 23:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done an FA worthy version of those two sections I've been working on. Did you know that? In any case, I've been kinda watching your Season 1 FAC (although not that closely). I am still willing to get those two sections, and maybe more, of the article ready for FA. I've got a few other things I'm working on right now (want to help get Abraham Lincoln to FA?), but as the Supernatural article's FA or GA gets closer, I'll put in the time I have to.
I just wanted to tell you I'm still around, and hopefully keep the train a-rollin. As I think about it, maybe I should start formatting the references, and making sure they're FA ready. Not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's cool. I've been slowly trying to format the refs, so hopefully it will be done soon. Ophois (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to the two women--and that my computer just isn't loading some other image--if so, then you cannot use that image. That's a standard, living person image which means you'd have to get a free one. If you are getting a picture of an actor/actress in the real world then it must be free. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check WikiCommons to see if one already exists (most likely going to be individual images). I think you can request a picture be taken on some WikiProject, but I'm not sure exactly what it's called. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you advertised the FAC on any of the TV project pages? If not, then you should. I'll try and give the real world info a scan over (don't want to spoil the episodes for myself), but glancing at the episode plot summaries I think you could probably add another line or so to each of them - if you want. You only have about 120 words (less on the majority of them) for a plot description. I've actually been meaning to add a bit more to the first few seasons of Smallville, given that it appears that the later ones require more like 150-200. Just a thought. Anyway, after I read through the production info, so long as I don't find anything dramatically confusing, I wouldn't have a problem supporting the article. Also, might I suggest changing the quote box to one of these? They tend to stand out better, which is good since your article doesn't have a lot of pictures and you can change their color (like a light shade of red) to keep with the color scheme of the page. Just a though.
Sorry about that. I got caught up with other stuff and didn't get a chance to read it. I still have it on my watchlist, and I do still plan to review it. It'll just give you more time to fine tune the article for the next FAC. Sometimes, if an article doesn't get enough voices (even if 2 people show up and support it), Raul won't promote it because it's not a true indication of what the community thinks of the article. Anyway, I will review it and we can renominate it again in a couple of weeks. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main page needs quite a bit of work. Just looking at it, it appears to be overly separated into multiple sections, and contains a lot of trivial info that could probably be sizably trimmed down. Plus, it's probably best to go to GAC, instead of FAC. I've personally always had trouble believing that any show could pass the "comprehensive" criteria of FAC when it's actively broadcasting new episodes. There is a lot still going on, and it's kind of hard to say you've covered everything that needs to be covered for the subject. GAC doesn't require that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At 5 seasons, you could probably trim that whole summary section down to a simple series overview. You have the season pages to take care of the season summaries. There is probably a bunch of extraneous plot detail used on the recurring elements. At 105kb of article, that can be trimmed down a bit to allow the real world info on those elements to be the bulk of the info (e.g., do we need all that backstory on the colt handgun? just knowing who uses it, and for it is probably enough). Just things like that. The page needs some tidying up. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but saying that something in a preview clip is a spoiler because the episode hasn't aired is like saying posting something in a movie trailer is a spoiler because the movie's not out...it other words, it makes no sense and everybody knows posting things in a trailer is perfectly acceptable. Kiwisoup (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First i've added some more critic and fan reaction to the character (all from Entertainment Weekly) and gave it a little clean up. But still, can you take a look on the grammar, being that you are better writer than me. Thanks for your help so far :D. --TIAYN (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can it become a GA now? --TIAYN (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving the "Cigarette Smoking Man" article in your spare time. It's really appreciated! :) --TIAYN (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with this "everything in the plot section needs to be cited to the individual episodes". --TIAYN (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... Fixed, is their anymore problems with the article? --TIAYN (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other reviewer of the "Cigarette Smoking Man" is now retired.... I ges that means you'll take over GA duties on the article... right? --TIAYN (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He posted it on his user page on October 17 saying he is retired from wikipedia. --TIAYN (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will have to wait for a bit. If you check out the page, someone has requested you hold off on the nomination for a bit due to the backlog. I'd suggest waiting about a week. Cheers, The Flash{talk} 00:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the second FAC nomination for now. Please wait for a couple weeks before re-submitting. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings!! I am Belugaboy535136, a very good friend of Airplaneman. Don't worry, we are doing a thorough check. As APM said on his talk, there are a lot of comma splices (ie. Sam and Dean killed the vampire, and they ran away), or unneeded commas. If you have any more questions regarding Supernatural or me and APM, please talk to us on APM or my talk page. Warm regards, Belugaboy535136 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first off the second image is a non-free image so deciding between a non-free and a free should be easy. :D But, at the same time neither image is really necessary. The page doesn't talk about the actors really. I've never understood why some people feel like they have to have an image there (which, I know wasn't your initial doing, but what someone basically requested at the FAC). That's my onion. FLC doesn't say you have to have an image there to be featured.
On some other minor notes, glancing at the page: I'd probably move the viewership numbers behind the airdates. In theory, it's a chronological thing. It gets made (which dictates ep number, writer, director), then it gets aired, and then we get viewership. That's just my thoughts on that. You could also simply the Ep # and Series # columns into a single "Ep #" column that sports two numbers (e.g., 25(3)) as the "series #" is still an "episode number" and the average reader can probably look at two columns and easily understand that you're continue to count the overall number of the episode with its place within that respective seasons. IDK, just a way to be more efficient.
In the Nielsen rating stuff, "TV season" can be cut. I recently cut that from Smallville's pages because I realized it's redundant to "Season premiere" and "Season finale". We basically tell the reader when the show premieres and ends, and then follow it up with a column that tells them the same thing again. The same with "Originally aired" in the DVD box. Since it's directly below the other, we don't need to repeat that information, because we literally just stated it. Personally, I would also drop "Ratings". The main problem with that figure is that it's a percentage to a number we don't have. 3.14 million is something the reader can understand, but trying to understand 1.4% of households without knowing how many households were watching TV is kind of hard. If you don't know that number, you might assume that it means 1.4% of ALL households in the US, which isn't true. It's largely irrelevant when trying to understand how well the show did. The viewership is really all you need, and the rankings so we know how it compared to other shows on TV.
Sorry if I gave you more than you requested, just sharing all thoughts. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Title card. That's a random promotional image, easily replacable by any other promotional image which makes it less significant. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. There are other Supernatural title cards. I can give you 3 more.
He's leaving messages on the image file's talk page, so you should probably venture over there and to the Smallville title card image talk page as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fan art, and even if it wasn't it isn't supported by any critical commentary. It's merely decorative. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert it the max is 100 MB? --JKSarang 08:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Because it looks better the other way. Ophois (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not it doesn't it's actually loosing pixels if you shrink it. that's why read the Image policy, it says 100MB is the limit and this image is 150KB so there's nothing wrong with it. Could you revert it back? --JKSarang 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
And what is visually appealing about a giant empty space above the cast in the photo...? Just because there is a limit doesn't mean you have to try to achieve that limit. The image is shrunk down when implemented, so it doesn't matter how big the actual file is for that reason. Having the actual file be smaller is better fair use. Ophois (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the big space? "Just because there is a limit doesn't mean you have to try to achieve that limit." Are you serious? This is the reason. The only reason you resize images is because orginally it's over 100MB. Better fair use what does that mean? It's not necessary to resize it because it's not over 100MB. --JKSarang 08:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Then go ahead because according to Wikipedia's rules 100MB is acceptable whether free or non-free. --JKSarang 08:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You might as well create a sandbox for this page, The Pilot (Supernatural), being that its underconstruction and you have not worked on it for ages.. Just a tip --TIAYN (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what's wrong with the Supernatural Season 2 infobox overlapping with the text? I can't find what's wrong, it could use fixing because it looks ... not good. Also, the episode counting on the List of Supernatural episodes page would look better if divided into the categories "Series #" and "Season #", as I edited yesterday. Why did you revert that? Is there some kind of general agreement not to do that? They did this category thing on the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer page. It's much clearer that way, would be better if we changed that. My last issue is the capitalization in some episode titles. There's a typeset rule that says prepositions are not to be written capitalized (See: http://www.writersblock.ca/tips/monthtip/tipmar98.htm). So for example, the title "Born Under a Bad Sign" should be "Born under a Bad Sign". Cooperson 20:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that resolves my issues. Just thought I'd ask. Cooperson 21:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Justice League (Smallville) isn't GA, so it wouldn't pass until that went through the GA process. The thought's crossed my mind, and I think there's a brief discussion about it on one of the Smallville talk pages. I guess as soon as I get around to running that through the GAC, I'll probably nominate for GAT as well. Right now I'm busy trying to find time for my sandbox project, and coming up with valid reasons of reliability for some of the EL sources at Friday the 13th (2009 film). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, every article has to be good article? Didn't know that. That will complicate things for Supernatural, lol. Anyways, also I added Blu-ray releases to the List of Smallville episodes. I found that season 5 and 6 were also released on HD DVD compatible with all regions, but can't think of a good way to integrate it. Ωphois 13:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every article that's related to the topic. Since "Justice League (Smallville)" is a character page, it would have to be GA (or at least have the GA actively being under review) to be considered. Yeah, I appreciate that stuff for Smallville. There isn't really a way to include the HD stuff in a table. We'll probably have to bring a few sentences of prose down to the beginning of the section, and then just include another statement about the HD-DVD. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the move. I'm going to put a message on the mover's page suggesting that he discuss the move if he feels it's necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably stay away from it. It looks like a personal blog, and MediaBlvd Mag isn't exactly the New York Post. It just comes across as sketchy, and probably wouldn't hold up well to scrutiny. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you review the family guy cast that is on FLC i saw that you reviewed the season 4 and.. no hard feelings for the merge thing, you where right all along..just need some time and pepole that are smarter than me to tell me things and be able to think better.--Pedro J.the rookie 23:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I will follow up with this quest do you now a lot about editing(enough to say your better than me)?--Pedro J.the rookie 23:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me follow up with this quest would you help me to get FG to FA i made it to GA and it is on PR but it needs help and god nows i cant do it alone.--Pedro J.the rookie 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Woah, woah, woah. Why was I blocked? I was not given a warning at all, and I did not go past 3 reverts. If what I did does count as edit warring, then why was Colleen16 not blocked? She has done the same number of reverts as I did (not that I want either of us to be blocked). The user is adding an inappropriate chart that lacks proper fair-use, and has been deleted before.}} below. EyeSerenetalk 10:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above block is largely for your engagement in recent edit-warring at iCarly; however, this, this and this are also concerning (and that last is certainly not vandalism). I think during your time off, you should re-read WP:BRD, the definition of vandalism at WP:VANDAL, and WP:STATUSQUO, to familiarise yourself with how we expect editors to conduct themselves and treat the good-faith edits of other editors. EyeSerenetalk 10:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What "edit warring" are you talking about? On iCarly, I reverted text that that was pointless in having. We did not edit war, as shown in the history. As for the demon article, how is that edit warring? I thought he was vandalizing the article, as he removed information without giving a reason, and when he did explain, I disagreed and asked him to use discussion page.Ωphois 10:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in your above explanation, please list the edits in the correct order. You have listed them in the incorrect order, which makes it appear that I reverted on the grounds of vandalism the second time. I did so the first time, when he just erased the info without giving an explanation. Ωphois 10:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't see why you listed VANDAL, BRD, and STATUSQUO at me. None of that applies. As I already explained, you looked at the Demon edits in the wrong order, and I was not reverting my edits back in, I was reverting unnecessary edits out, so BRD and STATUSQUO applies to the other editors. Ωphois 10:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They apply to everybody. Reversion is for dealing with vandalism, not for winning content disputes, and three reverts is not an entitlement; the spirit of WP:3RR applies as much as the letter. If you can't see that your recent edits at both iCarly and Hero (2009 TV series) (note that I could have listed additional diffs) constitute edit/revert warring, I think further blocks may be likely in the future. EyeSerenetalk 11:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained the edits to the Demon article, and you have not listed any iCarly edits that are edit warring. As for Hero, I did not realize that I made that many reverts. I had just woken up, as shown by the lapse in the edit time, and made the reverts. I would have stopped at three, but you did not give a chance, you just blocked me out of nowhere without giving any warning at all. From what I can tell, nobody reported me or anything, so it was not an urgent matter. If you felt I was inappropriate in my actions, then why didn't you just give a simple message on my talk space? And again, you say that they apply to everyone, yet the other user was neither blocked nor even warned. Ωphois 11:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You remove an image which was later rv'd back. Then: your first revert at 10:01; you were reverted back at 10:04; your second revert at 10:11; reverted back at 10:12. I have no doubt that, had I not blocked you at 10:15, you would have reverted again. This is a textbook preventative block, and justification in itself for my actions (and I have sanctioned the other editor too).
You make two reverts ([6], [7]) of another editor without attempting to discuss their content changes with them; they apparently give up after your second. I accept that the first might be mistaken for vandalism, but only if one fails to assume good faith. There was no excuse for the second; inviting discussion in an edit-summary while you're reverting is hardly sufficient.
Again we see a pattern of you reaching for the revert tool rather than discussing or improving edits. This was unnecessary - although the edit isn't brilliant, there is at least an attempt at sourcing. You could have helped to look for better sources rather than dismissing it out of hand. Again, although not a particularly good edit, [8] this could perhaps have been improved (or at least discussed) rather than dismissed.
I hadn't actually intended to block you while I was looking at the iCarly history, but on investigating the background I became quite disturbed by your apparent quickness to revert out of hand edits you don't like. We are trying to buld a collaborative encyclopedia, and part of that is educating and supporting weaker editors, not putting them off by belittling and removing their efforts. You've been here a while, been previously blocked for edit-warring, and should be well aware of our editing policies; saying you weren't warned first isn't convincing.EyeSerenetalk 14:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was blocked for edit warring a year ago, so I know not to go past three reverts. Had you not blocked me, I would still not have made another revert. For the demon article, he made a bold edit that removed content, and I reverted it and asked for discussion, which from my understanding is the BRD and status quo policies. For iCarly, that is just a quote from the creator about his opinion, which I feel didn't belong. I don't see why I should be blocked for these cases. Looking back, I agree that I should have tried more for disussion on the Hero picture. I had already tried that with another user on the same picture, and he just kept disregarding what I said until another user deleted the image for lack of fair use. Despite this, Colleen reuploaded the image, and I explained to Colleen that the image offers nothing in my edit summary, but Colleen just kept putting it off as vandalism. She did the same thing for the deletion tag that I placed on the image (which had been deleted preivously for the same reason). And you said that I would have kept reverting, but you did not mention anything on my talk page, or use any warning that is meant to defer edit warring. You just blocked me. I will try to use discussion more in the future. Currently I have nominated two articles for FAC and FLC, and would like to work on them today. Can you please reconsider the block? Ωphois 14:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|1=Woah, woah, woah. Why was I blocked? I was not given a warning at all, and I did not go past 3 reverts. If what I did does count as edit warring, then why was Colleen16 not blocked? She has done the same number of reverts as I did (not that I want either of us to be blocked). The user is adding an inappropriate chart that lacks proper fair-use, and has been deleted before. Ωphois 10:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC) :Okay, the admin that blocked me explained, and the reasons he listed were invalid. He claims that I edit warred on other articles, but a look at the page histories will show this to be untrue. Ωphois 10:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC) :And as pointed out by another user on their talk page, the admin appears to have a habit of just blocking without any warning at all. One user blocked today didn't even realize that what was happening was considered an edit war, and was blocked out of nowhere. Personally, I see this as a possible abuse of power, but I don't know how the policy goes for that. Ωphois 12:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC) :Sorry if this is too many messages, but I would like whoever is reviewing my request to please note that the admin's reason for blocking me (my "previous history" of edit warring in the past couple days) has not been shown. His claims for Demon (Supernatural) was a case of BRD after I saw that it was not a vandal, and I still have no idea what he is talking about for iCarly. Ωphois 14:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC) :Oh, I see what he is talking about on iCarly. There was an edit war between two users about broadcast history. When he saw that I had made a revert for something completely unrelated and made by a diferent user he instantly associated me with the edit war and didn't bother to look at what the edits were. I was not involved in the edit war, was not warned about anything, and feel I should not have been blocked. Ωphois 14:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Unblocked per discussion on the ANI thread linked below, the assurances you've given above about moving to discussion sooner, and time already served. EyeSerenetalk 10:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry on behalf of the admin corps that we did not respond to your unblock request soon enough to shave some time off this block. That said, hopefully this has been a learning experience in that it will help you remember, better than any warning would have, how stringent the edit-warring guideline can be appropriately interpreted (although I disagree with EyeSerene about the warning, I have no quibbles with blocking for 3 or even two reverts each across several articles). One thing you might try is holding yourself to 1RR as a personal standard. Once you've made one revert, drop a message on the article talk page and the user talk page of the person you're in a dispute with and try to resolve it. There's no more harm in the article being stuck in m:The Wrong Version for a few days because of self-restraint than if the same happens because you're blocked or the article gets protected. Plus, if an admin intervenes, you come off as being much more reasonable. Just a thought.--chaser (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your history Ophois and you've never edited Korean/Asian articles. So why do you continue to illustrate such harsh actions do you have a grudge against someone or something? Colleen16 (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am desperately asking you Ophois. Please do you want to beg I am begging you. If you want to help me by researching on him go head I would be grateful to you if you did this instead of adding all those tags, okay. I am being nice here. Colleen16 (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can add back a tag like the one under Commercials, in the Awards section. Cool? Colleen16 (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb wouldn't have enough info on him. You'd have to go through news articles on this actor to find information trust me. I am still trying to find info on his earlier awards though. Colleen16 (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to put only one tag in the awards section. i thought that was our agreement? Colleen16 (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean both? The Awrds clearly have references 11 to be exact. Colleen16 (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait where does it say a tag should be added to a section if it has under 26 references? Colleen16 (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make. Quite a bit of them are cited. So what does every single one have to be cited in order for it to not be tagged. Colleen16 (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ophois, I came at this as a reader, rather than a fan of the series. What I see as different between the two images is simply his clothes. Either image shows me what the actor looks like, and as the character is nothing other than the actor wearing what look like normal clothes, is perfectly adequate. If it is necessary, for a reader's understanding, to describe the differences between the free image and the appearance of the character, a bit of text would be fine - Peripitus(Talk) 21:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Acheridemon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was an inadvertent click. I didn't even realize I had reverted you until I was checking my contributions list. Sorry again. -- Avi (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. No worries. Ωphois 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, explain difference between format "Canadian-American" in SG-1 and Atlantis and "Canadian and American" in Universe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilnisr (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian-American refers to an American of Canadian descent. However, I didn't notice that it was used in those other articles, so I won't revert if you decide to change it back. Ωphois 19:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and Themes and allusions in Atlantis
That info is already present in other sections. Ωphois 19:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, but in this case, do we need this section in SG-1 or Universe
SG-1's is a "themes and allusions", which is covered in depth in that section. Universe's is "Premise and themes", which also goes in depth in that section, which is not covered in other sections. The section you added is just a regurgitation of Atlantis' series overview section. Ωphois 20:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really evaluate from a content standpoint, since the reference is an aircheck. However, the grammar in the changed version was atrocious, and that's my basis for reverting the latest change. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'd be doing a string search, that might help. (Specifically, I'm looking for the quote where Azazel is called a "tyrant.") —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why go to a noticeboard, when you haven't gone to the article's talk page yet? —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks for your review of the above FLC. Can you check to make sure your concerns have been resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have adreddssed some of your concerns cannt put any more recep but there is what i could fin d.--Pedro J.the rookie 15:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding the transcript of that interview! Clearly if anything comes up on any article research where I need transcript, I know who to call. —C.Fred (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Although I just typed in the quote into Google. And looking at it now, the older article cited has a link to the transcript, lol. Ωphois 15:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the move—which was attempted on at least three occasions now—and move-protected the page for a week. —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the family Guy season 5 where your concerns addressed(execpt the recep which three are not inof.).--Pedro J.the rookie 03:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prose could use a little improving, but yeah, my only main concern was reception. Ωphois 09:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ophois, I'll definately look over and copyedit
Supernatural (season 2) inbetween the middle
of the week and this weekend, as I'll be busy until then. ATC.Talk 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ophois, I copyedited a little in the lead (didn't see much else in the lead that needed fixing) but I suggest that, since leads don't generally have sources (unless the text is not anywhere else in the article which is sourced), should be removed since it clutters up the article. ATC.Talk 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting to erase the references in the lead—only if the text isn't anywhere else in the article and sourced (referenced)—since leads generally don't have too much references because it clutters up the article. ATC.Talk 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll revise that sentence. Also you categorized the references as "general" and "specific". They're really "bibliography" (which means book source) and "footnote". Also, it might be helpful, especially for FAC status to find more then one bibliography. ATC.Talk 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When scenes were filmed in the studio, does that mean it was the inside scenes? If so, I'll revise it to internal scenes were shot in the studio and was shot on location around the coastal city of Vancouver. ATC.Talk 23:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no I never had a problem or mentioned anything about the "Casting" section. I'm actually glad that the article has that, as appose to a "Cast" section. :) ATC.Talk 23:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides my minor copyedits, I don't see anything else wrong with the article and don't understand why it failed. If that's all I had to do, I wouldn't see why they at FAC wouldn't make those few suggestions that needed fixing. Can you provide me the link to the former nomination of the article, so I can see what major issues they saw? After I read it, and hopefully meet their requests, I'm going to ask someone on Wiki that I know, who is very good at making a list of suggestions for ways to improve articles for FAC status. I'm pretty sure he's an admin. ATC.Talk 03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, if he works at FAC, he knows more about writing then I do. Also, the article looks great which is not an arguable fact, but there might be a lot of minor things that we're not picking up on. I will definitely help you and I will contact a user, who generally makes a list of suggestions for articles for FAC criteria. He can definitely help and let us know what to look out for. Also, I saw your reply that you used a comma as a replacement of parentheses, one thing is to replace parentheses, you use mdashes which look like this: — (which should never be spaced) or ndashes: – (which can be spaced). You don't use to commas, but two dashes. Could you show me more of those commas you used to replace with parenthesis, so I can replace them with dashes. Then, I will contact that user I was talking about. I'll make sure the article gets to FAC criteria, because its beyond of just a "GAN" or, especially a B. ATC.Talk 03:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I refer to the commas, I'm referring to your comment on the FAC achieve: Just a note: The family business is "saving people and hunting things". The sentence is not a series. The comma is used for a parenthetical phrase. Anyways, I'm fine with that, though I would like to know what you find as redundant.Ωphois 23:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, wait I might misinterpreted when you said "comma", did you mean "comment"? I thought you meant that you used commas as a replacement for parentheses, am I wrong? ATC.Talk 03:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you still don't understand what I mean, NVM for now. I'm going to contact the evaluator I was talking about, and maybe if that's still a problem (or I even pick up on it), I'll fix it or he'll mention it. Let me write on his wall. I suggest if you haven't already to keep the Supernatural (season 2)'s talk page on your watchlist. ATC.Talk 03:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely talk to User:Sasata after I get insight from another editor about it, to see what they think. ATC.Talk 04:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your discussion at WP:Peer view. Good idea about re-nominating it! Let me know if you need more assistants and, even, more copyediting. Good luck!! ATC.Talk 12:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
since I can't edit this page since it is protected. Can you change this to th correct episodes. isaved your life is 232 and iSpace out is 239. they have them wrong. Also for the episode iDate a bad boy can you add the production code 225 with it as well and updatethe main page 58 episodes to 59 episodes. Here's the link to confirm this, http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?ti=26,0&Search%5FArg=iCarly&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=Lsj8AJf9CXakY8tNFUJeOuFvg7NUF&SEQ=20091206174518&SID=2
add it as the refference. I guess dan just took iGot cought and combined it. Might not be the excat title. Also remove this refference from the episode # only counted as one episode not two. then add this Note: This can be shown as a Two part episode or a Special with all parts together at the bottom of the episode summary. thanks big time. if you don't have time to change this I will after My four days up to be auto confirmed.The Master of disguises (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why do you go into FG GAR's xonstantly.?--Pedro J.the rookie 00:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, how exactly are commenting on two reviews "constantly"? Besides, if I see that an article is not up to standards, then I can comment on it. Ωphois 00:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just asking its good that you have an intrest in our proyect--Pedro J.the rookie 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, you have been nominating the articles way too early. I came across "Death Has a Shadow" because of the FAC. It's nothing personal. If I see that an article doesn't meet standards, then I will comment on it. Ωphois 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've conducted the GAN review Jo Harvelle. There are a few outstanding items, but I'm sure they will be addressed very quickly and that the article will easily pass. Please check out my concerns at the review page when you get a chance. Thanks, and nice job! — HunterKahn(c) 16:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, I've passed the GAN! I also changed the quote box to a different type, but that's really just my preference. Take a look and see if it works for you. If you don't like it, you can restore the other one. Nice work! — HunterKahn(c) 14:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll likely review at least one of those, but not until next week, due to the holidays. Gotta get that GAN backlog down! lol. Talk to you later. — HunterKahn(c) 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have a question. In the lead section for "What Is and What Should Never Be", their is a vague sentence. Did Adrianne Palicki direct the Friday Night Lights or produce or etc.? "Filming" sounds vague. Thanx! ATC.Talk 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. ATC.Talk 23:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the footnote sources, that aren't specified, should be either a {{cite news}} or a {{cite web}} tag. ATC.Talk 23:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, LOL - its not the biggest deal, as long as there are sources. ATC.Talk 01:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I took a look today and did one big edit. There wasn't much that needed tweaking, but I did what I could. Good luck with the FAC! Regards, Airplanemantalk 05:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ophois. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page. Message added 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Thank you for your contribution. I fully understand and validate what you are saying, however the criteria also reads "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, ... " The fact you quote also suggests " ... and it will never meet the standards ... " which I think is untrue in this case however you do raise a valid point which I will take into consideration in the final review. -- Nyxaus (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have also added a checkpoint entitled "Extend Production section with relevant information regarding this individual episode" as you have raised a valid point about Production. However I would like to suggest to you that you have a look at many TV related articles that have GA status, and take a look at their Production sections. From my experience, unless the episode has a notable production related issue, most articles will talk about cast members and guest stars, general knowledge about the episode, and perhaps a date of filming if accessible. What else would you be looking for from a production section, particularly for this specific episode?
Best wishes -- Nyxaus (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just realized that I have been contradicting myself! I have recently referred to some information not being avalible until after airing of the season, and you have correctly pointed out "... if the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria...". I sincerely apologize and do now fully see where you are coming from! (If the article was about something aired a year-or-so ago I would be sticking to my above point, however now do see the flaw you are talking about!!) Many thanks -- Nyxaus (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response, yes, the guideline would still apply however consideration would have to be taken into the availability of said information; could you really fail an article solely on missing information which does not exist? You would have to consider the entire article. Thank you again for your very helpful feedback, it will definitely help in the future. -- Nyxaus (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- saw your post @ ANI (again) concerning InkHeart&socksTM. One of the ways to take care of the problem would be to at least reduce the files to a smaller size as the template calls for. Can I get a list of all the contested files (I lost track...) so I can put them on my watchlist and eventually take care of the reduction? thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 20:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Werewolf3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ophois. Just want to say that you're doing a fantastic job tracking and reporting socks of InkHeart. If it's alright with you, I'd like to assign rollback rights to your account to assist you in dealing with InkHeart's vandalism. -FASTILY(TALK) 11:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! But before I do, promise me one thing: that you will only use this tool to revert obvious cases of vandalism (notedits made in good faith) and not use it to edit-war (of course, reverting vandalism is an exception to the 3RR rule so feel free to use it at your discretion when dealing with vandalism/sockpuppetry). -FASTILY(TALK) 21:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the good work you've been doing with keeping tabs on Inkheart. Here is another user I find suspicious: User:Serenityx23contributions as she made her own page for Lee Jun Ki again, but with a different spelling of his name. That issue has been taken care of, but in case she uses that account to continue to evade her block... oncamera(t) 00:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Ωphois 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ophois, nice work so far on the sandbox article of "Fresh Blood"!
Their was some minor fixes I needed to fix and will look at the article again, as I know you'll probably be expanding it.
Thanx! ATC.Talk 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Changelingsup.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I would. But my job is taking up 50 to 60 hours out of my week, which barely leaves me time to just clean up vandalism on the pages I do watch. Have you put in a request at WP:MOSTV or WP:TV? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look it over and see what I can do. Cortina2 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Casting: I broke up copy to make it more comfortable to read, rather than have the info on all the actors/characters in one paragraph. Also at the bottom, where you mention it looks like there's just one line, I had doublespaced between paragraphs, but the dingbats for the references in the body copy apparently cause the leading between lines to fall unevenly. (Still learning about Wiki's layout; not typical, so I may have to just be satisfied with the one paragraph.) I can go back and look over that first line under the Casting heading you're concerned about and see what I can do with it. Thanks Cortina2 (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. To let you know, ToxicWasteGrounds (talk·contribs) did set up an AfD page for the article. I can't find any evidence that he acted in such bad faith to where the nomination warrants a speedy keep. Accordingly, please comment at the AfD page on the matter. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has speedy kept it. I was borderline on it. I couldn't find where he had an axe to grind, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt—though the way the comments were coming in, I was about ready to snowball-keep it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In two edits you have replaced WP:SPAM external links without explanation.[9], [10]. In this edit, you gave the invalid reason that they were references.[11] These links add no encyclopedic information to the article, and are not needed to verify dates that are not in dispute. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are reverting many edits within a couple minutes, I assume that you are not checking the references. I did. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the response on my talk page. On investigation, the evidence does not support your statement. Furthermore, nothing you wrote justifies reverting my other changes to manga and a classical music discography. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I have to disagree with your revert here. SGU is certainly a spin-off but to say it was preceded by SG1 it would require to share some major characters or continue some storylines but it does neither. Apart from being set in the same universe and sharing some guest characters, the shows are actually two separate entities, so "related" is imho a better label for it than "preceding". Regards SoWhy 12:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Countdown to Destruction. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Countdown to Destruction. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Changelingsup.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.
I wonder exactly why the Family Guy family are named Griffin and who decided that the Family Guy family are named Griffin, and why did you remove the question I put on Wikipedia? --83.185.73.218 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every episode list page I've seen has guest roles listed at the bottom, not in the summary! Can you show me where on Wiki it says the correct format is in the summery? Thanks! --DegrassiFreak (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The one you just did, what;s the difference like suite life has or other shows have for broadcast history or international realse. I did check that one and it does not air there.Checker Fred (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
okay withen the next few weeks iCarly starts production up again for season 4. Now the episodes they are going to film will be on showfax.com. Here's the thing though they are only there for a couple of weeks. Now could I do the reference and just put show fax on not the link or put showfax in the edit summary. there are not really many sources for episdoes and the only thing is a blohg that contains the episodes and the person who runs it gets them from show fax. What's the best way to do this. Checker Fred (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your actions on this article earlier today were based on a misunderstanding. The IP was not banned, but rather someone who used it 4 years ago was. In the future, please warn for edit warring rather than asking for page protection in these sorts of situations. See here for more information. Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about the identity of the IP, but you are goign about this all wrong. If you insist on continuing your edit war, I am going to have to block both of you. Being right is not an excuse for edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked 189... as an open proxy. Some of the others seems to be closed now, and since the problems have stopped (for now), I'll leave them unblocked. Please leave me a message at the first sign of additional problems on any article and I'll block them immediately. By shutting down the open proxy we prevent not only this user but other potential vandals as well, where as protecting the article only encourages them to find new targets you don't know about.
Thanks for your cooperation, --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed similar ratings lists from a bunch of articles on Korean or Chinese TV shows. Whether they were added by the same person or not, I have no idea, but they all were unreferenced or poorly referenced. Most had one of two formatting schemes, and are not protected against anon editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ophois,
You reverted an editors edits just because of sources. You should confront the editor and ask them to include more sources because by removing the information you aren't helping to build the article. EunSoo (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased someone else is aware of Wikipedia protocol in this area. Ghostwords (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just sad that it's not you though. Ωphois 09:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I would like to clarify with you what improper sourcing are you referring to when you reverted my edit? --Tjmj (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article so that if anyone heard the term, they could find out what it means. I'm trying to be as fair as possible and provide enough references to keep the article legitimate. I don't see any need to delete the article, as I have provided a link to the main article, ICarly. -- Confession0791 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is his account, and what he did say. I've worked really hard on this article, so please tell me what I need to do in order to keep it. -- Confession0791 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a few days, and I'll see what I can find. In the meantime, consider "Brangelina". -- Confession0791 (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could find the term in maybe Tiger Beat or Bop, but it wouldn't be enough. Let's merge this page with the character articles. -- Confession0791 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me, I come from Wikia, which is a completely different universe. I now understand that on Wikipedia, things have to be absolute fact. I have two questions:
Is there any way the word "Seddie" can be inserted into the character article? -- Confession0791 (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me what a "reliable source" is. Confession0791 (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, Dan Schneider does not use portmanteaus. Explain "mainstream", as it seems to be subjective. Confession0791 (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite our disagreements, I appreciate your help, as I am new to Wikipedia. I look forward to working with you. -- Confession0791 (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added iCarly Wiki to the External Links on the ICarly article. It meets the criteria for a stable wiki, which may be listed as such. I also have documented this on Talk:ICarly. User:Night Fight, who appears to not be an administrator, repeatedly reverts my edits without explanation, and then accuses me of waging an edit war. Please resolve this conflict. Sincerely, Confession0791 (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are discussing whether the article needs to be updated to meet the GA criteria. Your contributions would be welcome. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting Ophois, it seems that most of the other contributors have forgotten about the show (or are trying to lol). Anyway, I just wanted to say nice work on the Supernatural article. It's looking really good and I was amazed to see how much it has changed in a couple of months. The lead looked a little short, so I went ahead and expanded it a little. It's not great in covering everything, but I think it's a good start. Just a question, have you considered changing the order of the headings? While a lot of articles do present "production" information first, I think it would be better to start the article with information on the characters and plot, and then discuss the behind-the-scenes. As an example, have a look at the Friends article. I think that order makes a lot more sense. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 10:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol I generally stay away from FACs, but good luck with it. Usually I try to get articles to GA because it's quicker and I can do way more at the same time. I'm about halfway through season 4 of Supernatural myself. Are you making the episode articles in any order? I might try to write one or two as well in the next couple of months. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ophois. Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I've been away, but I return for good on Monday and I'll do my best to review it this week. Thanks! — HunterKahn 13:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this on the Lawrence Kutner talk page, but it does not seem to have frequent activity. Regarding the revision in the character biography, shouldn't a fictional character biography refrain from referring to the actor's motivations? Since Kal Penn's reasons for leaving the show are included in Kal Penn's page, shouldn't his motivations for leaving the show be omitted from Kutner's biography? Is there a Wikipedia standard for this?--Emgee1129 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Christmaspres.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Hey Ophois. I wanted to apologize that I didn't get a chance to look over Fresh Blood (Supernatural), but I see that it passed the FAC! I meant to look it over, but I've had some craziness in my personal life recently and really haven't been able to contribute to Wikipedia in recent weeks like I'd like to. Again, my apologies, and let me know if I can ever be of help in the future! Congrats again! — HunterKahn 03:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I updated File:Pilotinfobox.JPG, the image you uploaded was squished together from a 16:9 frame to a 4:3 image, which created a disproportional image. Not sure if that was some-kind of error or something else. Just a friendly notice, you probably already know. Xeworlebi(talk) 21:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just saw. I got the original off of Megavideo, but yours looks much better. Thanks. :) Ωphois 21:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have a problem with people adding summeries to unaired episodes. We take them down, but they keep adding them. This is starting to become an edit war. Confession0791 (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it was Active Banana who initiated the process by deleting the text in the article and in each case before editing i have provided substantive material supporting my case.--Penbat (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Doniago is just being opportunist. He previously admitted he knows nothing about the subject. He has previously harassed me previously no end and this time he certainly deserves to be banned and i will step up measures this time. --Penbat (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I can dig up all the historical links demonstrating Doniagos past harassment if you wish. --Penbat (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was wondering if you could peak at these three users (2 accounts, 1 IP) contributions and see if you think their behavior is similar to the Sock? They behave in the same manner; highly knowledgeable about Wiki for relatively new accounts, reverts on Korean music related articles: Jenaveev18, Yoyuta, 80.240.202.170. Right now, they are undo-ing proper Header formatting. oncamera(t) 00:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think that Jenaveev18 is InkHeart, and left a message for the admin Fastily (who usually deals with InkHeart). Not sure about the other two, but it probably is if they seem united in their efforts. Ωphois 00:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which article are you referring to? I can help out with undos until the issue is dealt with if they are disrupting it. Ωphois 00:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke to the admin User talk:zzuuzz earlier about InkHeart, so he may intervene if you also talk to him about the situation. Ωphois 01:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit you asked for indef blocking of a couple of IPs "as it is merely a proxy". I have blocked them both for three months. even for an open proxy we do not usually indef-block IPs. If, after the 3 months, there is further trouble, I will be willing to block for longer. Another point is that it took me quite a long time looking through edit histories before I saw what was wrong with 41.234.202.185's edits at all. Once I realised that earlier edits by you were the linking factor it was obvious, but it was a while before I noticed that. I mention this because it is worth bearing in mind that, if you know what is the problem with a particular person's edits and someone else doesn't, it can help that other person if you give some indication of where to look to see the problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When suggesting I've made a "controversial" edit, it helps if you explain which edit you're referring to. Ghostwords (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understood it, the usual procedure is to request a citation, rather than simply delete the edit (unless it's clearly vandalism). No worries: I could back up the edit if I wanted, but I'm bored now. Ghostwords (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you withdraw your GAR nominations of Mother Tucker and Hell Comes to Quahog. Immediately nominating there, without contacting or alerting anyone about your concerns, breaks from the process of when to use GAR, which states, "Use this process when a disagreement over an individual reassessment or review of good article nomination cannot be resolved among the editors involved." To my knowledge, there wasn't even a discussion. I would have gladly addressed your concerns, in order to pass WP:GT, but using WP:GAR as a tool to seemingly sabotage work that had been done by nominators and reviewers from years ago is a little over the top. I fully addressed your concerns in regards to Mother Tucker, and I question why you've seemed to ignore the process after nominating it. Thanks. Gage (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of my mistake, the reviews are community reassessments and are out of my hands now. Several other editors have already found many faults with "Hell Comes to Quahog", so it would make no sense to withdraw it. Ωphois 01:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've still yet to comment at all in regards to Mother Tucker. Thanks. Gage (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone on to take the time to copyedit and expand Hell Comes to Quahog. I'd like to thank you for withdrawing your nomination of Mother Tucker, and I hope you will consider doing the same for this episode as well. If you still have any concerns, please state them on the GAR, and I will attempt to address them. Thanks. Gage (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I noticed was that the soundtrack infobox was wrong, per {{Infobox album}}, reviews are no longer listed in the infobox, but in a separate section called critical reception. As TZP was the most successful soundtrack of the calendar year, it will have ample reviews and commercial performances to fill up the section. More to come later. — Legolas(talk2me) 10:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we couldn't find any other reviews for the soundtrack. Do you know of any good websites/reliable sources that would? Ωphois 11:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'll have time to sit down and thoroughly look through it today, but I'll take a look if I get the chance. Ωphois 20:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks Ophios and again sorry for the SN disscusion. --Pedro J.the rookie 20:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, the production section seems a little light. Is there no information regarding the making of the episode? Ωphois 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sadly. Something you have to understand that makes are articals diffrent than yours is that the creators of FG keep any comentery or source of how its made on DVD comenterys of which i have none, sadly, also passed Dream a Little Dream of Me (Supernatural), but there is a small task you need to do. --Pedro J.the rookie 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would automatically fail Good Article Criteria 3a: "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Production information is a major aspect of an episode article. If the information is not yet available, it may be best to just wait until it is. Ωphois 04:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well just to be clear FG articals normally get to that big of production the only thing i can add now is other pepole that worked in the episode. --Pedro J.the rookie 05:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can always just wait until the DVD comes out. Ωphois 15:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i belive but i can expand the production not exactly on that but i can expand it. --Pedro J.the rookie 16:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I have reviewed Bobby Singer and have placed it on hold. There are just a few issues and I will allow seven days for them to be dealt with, but I trust it won't take this long. Thank you. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think right now the page suffers from being primarily written from an in-universe perspective. I think if it was rewritten from an OOU perspective then it would be easier to assess. I would be surprised if there was not a lot of OOU info in the companion books. I think seeing if the page can be cleaned up and then assessed to see if it needs to be merged is where you should head. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please not listen to that Pedro thy master user, certain redlinks help Wikipedia and there is no reason to categorically oppose them, check WP:REDLINK. Hekerui (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud2btHsWgyM Go to 7min40 Sec . it seems fine since it is from nathan for the new untitled upisode. for the iCary page. Nathan said "...Max was just in the episode we just film iStart a Fan War. I don't have time right now to check this but it looks like he said it. Can you tell if this is a fine source and I will update the two parter episodeSaylaveer (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like what he said to me. If that's from an official youtube channel, then it would work I think. Ωphois 16:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ophois. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page. Message added 19:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hi Ophois sorry for not siting my recent editing work I did on Supernatural Season 6 I got all my information from IMDB but just so you realize some of the current information you have on the Supernatural Season 6 that you reverted back to isn't right for one Jensen Ackles is currently only confirmed to have directed Episode 4 of Season 6 not Episode 5, an Robert Singer has only been confirmed to have directed Episode 3 of Season 6 not Episode 1 because Episode 1 will be directed by Phil Scigrcia, Episode 3 is also written by Ben Edlund. Also the Live Free Twi Hard Episode thats currently a working title for one of the episodes this season we just don't know which one yet.
IMDb is not considered a reliable source, so it cannot be used for information. I've removed the bits that you have noted. Ωphois 04:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that thanks for doing the changes that you could do and thanks for the help.
Thanks for uploading File:Man possession.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Demoneyes2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. BelovedFreak 17:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You have violated the three-revert rule on Supernatural (TV series). Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Report made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Castielwings.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
