User talk:Rswallis10/Archive 1

This is an archive of my talk page.

Epguides.com

Please do not source episodes using epguides.com. It is not a reliable source and therefore cannot be used in citations. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I am not the one who cited epguides.com on that edit, I never actually looked at the source. I saw the information in a paragraph at the bottom of the page and decided to move it into the table, which, if I'm not mistaken, is acceptable behavior. If the information isn't reliable enough to be in the table, then I don't believe that it should be included in the paragraph below either. Unless someone else can provide an acceptable source for that information, I will delete the information in the paragraph myself. In the future, please make sure to look at the edit history on the page before accusing me or anyone else of using unreliable sources. Thank you. Rswallis10 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Before creating a table entry, you should have checked the source to make sure the episode was sourced correctly. AlexTheWhovian reverted your edit with "Unreliable source" in his edit summary,[1] but you restored the table entry regardless.[2] Your latest edit went beyond just deleting the epguides sourced content. You also deleted a perfectly valid entry. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I think that it's amazing that someone can have the nerve to revert my edit for having an unreliable source within minutes of it being saved; however, no one reverted the information in the paragraph although it was there for a couple days. I guess I assumed that the source was legitimate because it hadn't already been reverted after several days. I didn't undo Alex's edit because of the unreliable source, I undid it because I had coded it wrong. I still don't appreciate you accusing me for something I didn't do, and I don't appreciate you criticizing me for not paying attention to the small source provided, obviously you didn't pay attention either when you thought I was the one who put in that link. Pot meet kettle. Rswallis10 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no time limit threshold as to when an edit can be reverted. If it does not agree with Wikipedia policy, it can be reverted straight away. And obviously, nobody noticed the edit adding the paragraph that contained the unreliable source, whereas we did notice the table entry. If you'd coded the table wrong, and I reverted, it's easy to refix the coding after the revert. Is it not? And we're not all superheroes here, we can't take note of everything that happens every time. Wikipedia is an effort of many editors - if you'd read WP:SOURCE, you would have known yourself to remove the source. Collaborative effort. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Night Shift page

Hi there. Firstly, there is no need to be rude. I was put off replying to your initial post due to your abrasive manner. I also have never had to use one of these user pages previously, so was unsure of how to do so. Anyway, I recognise that the page does not belong to me, but it also does not belong to you. You may not realise, but there was extensive confusion on Twitter at the time that episode aired, regarding continuity. The writer himself commented numerous times that the episode was being shown out of order. So as to help get the word out there, I added that information here. It is cited, credible and highly relevant as the continuity across the episodes makes no sense and this offers explanation. For instance, one character leaves in the episode prior, but then is back without explanation in the episode that is in the wrong place. I appreciate that shows air episodes out of order, but the fact is that this show does not. The show is serialised and order is important, especially when continuity is involved. If it weren't an issue, the writer wouldn't have felt the need to explain. I have absolutely no obsession with this edit. I have made numerous other edits such as grammar etc. I simply added a fact I believed relevant. No one else seemed to have a problem with it, so I don't understand the issue. I cannot understand why you are so against it. Marap23 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 March

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

• On the Madam Secretary (season 1) page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of The Big Bang Theory episodes. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. AussieLegend (✉) 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note that when you make changes that are reverted in good faith, it is not up to other editors to come to you on your talk page to discuss the matter, it is up to you to convince other editors on the article's talk page of the merits of your changes and gain consensus for your changes. Repeatedly forcing your edits into the article after they've been reverted, as you have been doing,[3][4][5][6] is seen as disruptive at best. By making 4 reversions in less than 9 hours you have breached the three-revert rule and could be blocked at any time if you persist in edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: You could also look at it both ways, my edit was actually there first and complied with ALL of Wikipedia's policies, and there really was no REAL reason to revert it. i believe that Alexthewhovian also broke the 3 revert rule, but I don't see you going to his talk page and threatening to block him. Also, I didn't revert 3 edits, I went in and manually changed each time because I was making new changes in hopes of reaching a format that we can all agree on. Both of you two have let your inflated egos get in the way of logic and common sense. Instead of worrying about which one of you two "gets the last word" how about instead you focus on "what makes the most sense in this situation?" I would love to start a discussion about the format in the article's talk page' but you two keep reverting without trying to start a discussion first. At first, you even claimed that the "readers" would have a hard time understanding what my format meant; however when I showed your format (with rank in parentheses) to a couple of my friends (non wikipedia editors), they thought it looked "in the wrong place" and "tacky." One even asked me "what does that number in the parentheses mean?" So how about we TALK about it on the talk page, and let logic dictate our decision on how to format this table. I never thought that a good faith edit like mine would result in an egofest. Rswallis10 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The edit that was there first was the one that I initially reverted to, not yours. When content is under dispute we revert to the revision prior to the edit that resulted in the dispute, and that was the revision before your edit. AlexTheWhovian did not break WP:3RR. A revert is defined as An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, and this was the case with each of your 4 reversions.

"I would love to start a discussion about the format in the article's talk page' but you two keep reverting without trying to start a discussion first." - As I've explained, the onus was on you to start the discussion, which you had plenty of time to do, and should have done instead of reverting.

"So how about we TALK about it on the talk page" - That's what you should have done instead of this. I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Despite your claims of wanting to discuss I note that even now, more than 5 hours after the above post, you still haven't tried to discuss on the article's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: a similar situation is currently happening on The Blacklist (season 2) as well. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@EauZenCashHaveIt: You have a lot of nerve coming to my talk page and adding that. If you actually looked at the List of The Big Bang Theory episodes talk page, you would see that I actually explained my actions, and was never responded to. My edits on "Big Bang" were all positive and are actually still there today (more than a month later). What I am doing is NOT edit-warring. In my edit summaries, I have explained my actions (while you have not), and I even came to your talk page to discuss it with you. Before accusing me of edit-warring, make sure to get the definition straight first. Rswallis10 (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

In response to your edit asking for a specific policy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Blacklist_(season_2)&oldid=662624263&diff=prev

I already provided you the policy multiple times. I'll link it again and I'll even copy and paste the applicable sections for you:WP:TVUPCOMING

When a series is renewed for an additional season, a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season. The information regarding the renewal of the series should be added to the article's lead, depending on when and what info is revealed. An example is the lead from List of Person of Interest episodes, when the series was renewed for a fourth season in March 2014 with an air date that had not yet been announced:

[…] On March 13, 2014, CBS renewed the show for a fourth season, which is scheduled to premiere on September 23, 2014.

A section heading for the upcoming season should be added to the page only when an episode table can be created for the season. However, years should not be added to said section heading until an episode actually airs in that calendar year. For example, for the eleventh season of NCIS, the heading on its list of episodes page would have been "Season 11" until September 23, 2013. After episode 1 aired on September 24, 2013, it would be changed to "Season 11: 2013". And finally, once episode 12 aired on January 7, 2014, it would be changed once again to "Season 11: 2013–14".

A possible exception to a section header being created for the season before an episode table is ready, is if substantial information for the season, that is not duplicated from the lead, is available. An example is taken from the "Season 8" section on The Big Bang Theory list of episodes page, before a season page or episode table was created:

You have not added any substantial content regarding the third season of The Blacklist, which is why I have reverted your edits and redirect the 3rd season article back to the main episode list. However, you are beginning to cross into edit warring territory, and I don't take part in that. You need to undo your edits and discuss them first, and if by some odd chance I happen to wrong, I'll back and won't have any issue admitting fault. Davejohnsan (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

References

I also informed you of said link in the lead paragraph here: [7]. Also, regarding the season finale: in each and every episode so far, the name is stated after "The Blacklist" opening sequence, usually with that person's/group of persons' blacklist number. This time is no different: the title is spelled "TOM CONNOLLY NO 11". The footnote satisfies the need to tell the reader that it WAS previously called Masha Rostova. I am not sure why you alone keep reverting everyone and threatening with reports. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

[Comment rescinded - accidentally posted on wrong user page. Davejohnsan (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)]

@Davejohnsan: I think you forgot to look at who you're talking to. I am Rswallis10, NOT Fusionem. I reverted what you did ONE time, then read wheat you wrote here, and never reverted again. Both things you cited were NOT my edits. I think you need to go to Fusionem's Talk page and discuss these issues with him. I don't appreciate the condescension, especially when you are incorrect. Rswallis10 (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Then I owe you a big apology! I'm so sorry about this mixup.. My brain doesn't function at its best when I work 10 hours. If you don't mind, I'll rescind my comment off your page. Davejohnsan (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Davejohnsan: It's all good. Mixups happen to me too. Thank you for all your hard work on The Blacklist page! Rswallis10 (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, except now I feel like an asshole. I don't always pay attention to user names, which helps when I need to be impartial, but not so much when I'm about to chew someone out. Thanks for your understanding. I put a generic disruptive template on his page. Davejohnsan (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 July

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

• On the Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (miniseries) page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Adalbert of Moersberg

For what "variety of reasons"? --Volmar (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi, Rswallis10. Please do not place the orphan tag in disambigustion pages, as per this policy. Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@ExperiencedArticleFixer: I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I had done that. Thank you for pointing that out, its been a long day, and I do make mistakes. Rswallis10 (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

deletion criteria

Please be careful in marking pages for speedy deletion. The rules at WP:CSD are meant to be followed literally and strictly. Roseburia jhas context: no context means you can't tell what the article is about; it has content--it gives more than the name; it does not fall within A7 , which is limited to individuals, individual animals, organizations, web content, events. And, incidentally, it's notable, as are all species and higher groups of biological organisms., DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Olympiacos B.C. presidents - please delete it

Hello, Rswallis10, I've seen that you've just patrolled this article. This article should be deleted. My intention was to create a category (which I did afterwards), but I forgot to add "Category:" at the beginning. Consequently, a page was created (instead of a category), all by mistake. So if you can delete it, please do so. Thank you. Gtrbolivar (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gtrbolivar: I marked the page for speedy deletion. It will be deleted soon. Rswallis10 (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Deleted. Rswallis10 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Rswallis10. Have a good one. Gtrbolivar (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Olympiacos S.C. templates Speedy deletion

Man, I made the same mistake again. I forgot to add "Category:" in the beginning of the sentence and an article was created instead of a category. Can you delete it? I'm very sorry for all the inconvenience. Gtrbolivar (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, No Problem. Rswallis10 (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Gtrbolivar (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Center for Healthcare Innovation

Hi Rswallis10, thank you for your feedback. I am in the process of contacting the parties from which I have copied and pasted materials from. How can let searchbot and other users know that yes I am aware that it has been copied and pasted but that I am in the process of going through the entire e-mail, material-usage consent process'? Is there some kind of code that I can paste on my Wiki User page that lets people know this or that gives me a grace period to contact the parties involved? CHI Site Wiki (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)CHI Site Wiki

@CHI Site Wiki: I'm sorry, but copyrighted material is never allowed on Wikipedia, even with relevant permissions. You are more than welcome to put the information into your own words, and use a ref tag. My user page has a great template that you can follow to cite Internet sources. You are also encouraged to synthesize the information from multiple sources in your article. Thank you. Rswallis10 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Template overkill

Just FYI, edits like this are not helpful. All species are considered notable per WP:N, as there are scientific papers, sometimes even books dedicated to them. If a stub article has only one sentence, one source is sufficient, a lead is unnecessary, and suggesting it be divided into sections is ludicrous. Please think twice before massive tag-bombing. Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Thanks for the pointer. Maybe next time, be just a LITTLE more condescending towards me, I tend to respond better to that. Cheers. Rswallis10 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for my tone. All the best. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Independent School Batam

Hello Rswallis10, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Independent School Batam, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Precision in viewer numbers

Please do not change the precision of viewer numbers without discussion, as you did here. The current consensus is to round to 2 decimal places. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I appreciate your concern over the Nielsen ratings; however, the consensus has changed for shows that don't/won't/rarely ever reach 1 million viewers. If a show consistently gets over 1 million viewers, there isn't a reason to go to another decimal point, as 2 decimals are specific enough. There are many shows that will never reach 1 million viewers, so using 3 digits after the decimal point in order to be more specific is perfectly fine. Please see Black Sails, Survivor's Remorse, Bringing Up Bates, Strike Back, Boss, Web Therapy, Banshee, Episodes, Rectify, etc. I'm sure there are more pressing edits to revert, than someone trying to comply with a new consensus and being more specific. I hope you understand my point! Rswallis10 (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please link me to the discussion for that "consensus". The fact that it's done in a few articles doesn't mean anything. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 September

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

• On the You're the Worst page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Startup U

Where did you find ratings for Startup U from September 18th? The source you listed, https://web.archive.org/web/20150919031441/http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-100-thursday-cable-originals-9-17-2015.html does not contain the word "startup u". Can you please clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.178.166 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC) @70.31.178.166: Look in the comments section. Rswallis10 (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 September

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

• On the Blunt Talk page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 November

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

• On the Flesh and Bone (miniseries) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Rswallis10/International Ratings

User:Rswallis10/International Ratings has many citations to www.throng.co.nz, which is an unreliable source, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_199#www.throng.co.nz. I've been removing these links from wikipedia. I won't touch things in your user-space, but please don't move them to article space. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Article splitting

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from You're the Worst into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Better Call Saul episodes, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. As explained on the article's talk page, inclusion of the end date is both in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. Please do not edit-war over this and respect WP:BRD AussieLegend (✉) 03:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Better Call Saul episodes. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 04:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please note, regarding this edit summary, decisions are based on WP:CONSENSUS, not "majority rules" and there is no excuse for edit-warring. If you really want to be blocked for this, then keep doing that. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Bones (season 11)

Hi Rswallis10, I just wanted to let you know (if you haven't noticed already), but the references you've added for the ratings section have been tagged as "unreliable" by another editor. I guess because the link is from Disqus and the source is a comment. However, I understand the commentator is the article author, but it gives the impression it's from a message board or something. I'm not sure what you'd want to do, because I see TV Media Insights has changed to Programming Insider, meaning all the original links are dead and the comments are deleted from the original article (which is why you're using the direct Disqus links). Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts:, thank you for bringing this to my attention because for some reason I didn't get a notification about this. I will have to talk to this editor about this because even though I don't like using Disqus as a source, it's still perfectly valid. I would rather use TV Media Insights, but as you said, it no longer exists, and the Internet Archive Wayback Machine doesn't archive the Disqus comments on the pages. Rswallis10 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"I will have to talk to this editor about this" I see that you didn't bother prior to replacing the tags with notes. Had you done so I would have explained that, contrary to your assertions in the notes that you added to Bones (season 11),[8] discussion forums do not become reliable simply because you say they are. I specifically asked about these forums at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bones (season 11). You need to find a better source. If you aren't convinced, I suggest you read this discussion, which addressed pifeedback.com, as well as the other discussions linked at WP:TVFAQ#Unreliable sources. ChaosMaster16, the editor who insisted on using pifeedback.com instead of finding a better source (his arguments were surprisingly much the same as yours), is now indefinitely blocked for that. You can't simply use unreliable sources when it's too hard to find reliable sources. Disqus.com does not meet the requirements of a reliable source so it doesn't matter who you think posts there. The site itself is not reliable and cannot be used as a source. Most pages seem to use TV By The Numbers and there are already citations in the episode table that you can probably use. I'm sure you can get the ratings figures from there, but discussion forums no matter who the author claims to be, are simply not acceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I don't even know where to start. I'm truly at a loss with you. I think it would be better for you to learn some more about TV ratings rather than trying to lecture me about it, so please let me try to explain this again, since you obviously didn't quite get it the first time around.

1. DISQUS IS NOT A FORUM. I don't know how many times I can say that for you to get the message. It is a program that allows comments to be archived even after a page or website is deleted.

2. The data on that page comes from TV Media Insights (WHICH IS A RELIABLE SOURCE); however, that site was deleted, and therefore all of the content can no longer be found on the active web.

3. The person who runs the website (Douglas Pucci aka SONOFTHEBRONX) is a reliable source, because his data has been used on The Futon Critic [9][10] AND TV by the Numbers [11] Archived 2016-02-20 at the Wayback Machine[12] Archived 2016-02-20 at the Wayback Machine[13] Archived 2016-02-20 at the Wayback Machine,both of which you refer to as "reliable sources".

4. I personally do not like the DISQUS link either, but it is the ONLY way to retrieve the RELIABLE data. The website was deleted, and the comments are NOT archived by the Wayback Machine since they are saved on the DISQUS servers rather than the TV Media Insights servers. Since they are stored offline, they were saved when the website went down.

5. There is no other "better" source to use, which is why I am using the DISQUS links. Bones is a show that doesn't always make the TVBTN Live+7 lists, so when it doesnt, I use the data from Douglas Pucci to fill in the chart. If you actually looked at the Live+7 data from TVBTN, you too would've seen that the data isn't always there.

6. Also, this one last thing that should really help my case. You said that there is no way to tell if the data was ever ACTUALLY on the TV Media Insights page. I completely forgot that when Google Caches the pages, it does archive the comments. Here [14] is a link to a cached page from TVMI that has the comments in the bottom (this is from a season 10 rating). This proves that the comments were originally from the page and not "posted on a discussion forum". You too "can see with your own eyes" that the comments are there.

I hope this give you all the assurances you need about the validity and reliability of the data. If there was a better source to use, you'd better bet I would use that one instead.

Also, one more thing. User:ChaosMaster16 may have been blocked, but his arguments were perfectly valid. I read that "PiFeedback" discussion you linked to, and there are a couple of things I need to correct. First, you said that the majority of the content on "PiFeedback" was copied from TVBTN, but in reality, it's THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Until around 2012, TVBTN got ALL of their cable ratings exclusively Travis Yanan (and occasionally SonoftheBronx) in the PiFeedback forums. Save for the week that SonoftheBronx provided the numbers, every single cable ratings post from The Futon Critic and TVBTN was sourced to Travis Yanan. TVBTN simply just copied and pasted the data from PiFeedback into their pages, yet for some reason, Travis Yanan's posts are considered unreliable, but TVBTN's posts are considered reliable??? Please explain that to me. Seriously. Rswallis10 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Disqus is forum for WP purposes. It falls under WP:NEWSBLOG comments, and WP:UGC, if you're trying to cite comments from it. If you're trying to cite the original story upon which people are commenting, then cite the original blog; Disqus has nothing to do with it. You're also misinterpreting WP:RS. A person is not a reliable source. A reliable source is a publication (and its reliability is contextual: A highly regarded book on oil painting is not a reliable source for any chemistry information it may contain in passing, because it is not a chemistry source; a blog considered reliable [most are not] for a particular thing, like Linux system administration, is not a reliable source for international economics, if the blogger happens to post something about economics for some reason). You're confusing the reputability of the blogger for the contextual reliability of the information or views provided by that person in the specific sources they create that are themselves reputable (e.g. their books, their journal articles, maybe their own blog). A blog comment by someone who is a reputable publisher of something is not a reliable source. Ever. It has the same weight as a dinner conversation. This does not mean one can never be cited. It is a low-quality primary sources, but it may be usable for certain things. It might be noteworthy that a notable writer (whose own publications we consider reliable) happened to comment in a pithy way on something at someone else's blog, and citing the Disqus discussion in which they did so is an acceptable source that it happened and what the wording was (it qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF, in the sense "yes, I really did say that, and there's no controversy that I said it"). It's not a reliable source for any alleged facts in that post, and it does not help establish notability.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Please familiarize yourself with this conversation. Thanks! Rswallis10 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Already have. This repeated shouting that "DISQUS IS NOT A FORUM!" doesn't make it not a forum for WP purposes. The "not a forum" argument is an argument about what distinguishes it as a platform/service from other services, and has nothing to do with the reliability factor.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: You can't even believe how over this whole thing I am. I know you had a beef with Darkfrog24, someone who happens to agree with me on the validity of the source, so please don't come here just because of that. However, if you are here as a concerned editor, then maybe we can talk. I really hate repeating myself, so please read my discussion with Darkfrog24 here where I further explained my points. Also please let me correct you on something; a person may not be able to be considered a "reliable source" but they can be considered "experts," and thats what Douglas Pucci (SonOfTheBronx) is. Again, I'm not saying that DISQUS itself is a reliable source, and if you actually did read the entire discussion, you would've read that it was only put in as a convenience link, because the page that originally had the content was deleted. The links go to an archive of the comments section from the original page. Rswallis10 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If you're over it, then let it go. :-) This has nothing to do with DF24; I didn't even notice they were involved in it until later. I'm very good at compartmentalizing. For example, I supported their notion that the stats in question must be available from some better source that random blog comments. Not even reading the rest of this. I guess that's not fair. I don't see that DF24 agrees with you except on the potential validity of one source for one thing; your general approach to this isn't meeting much much buy-in from anyone. And DF24 has views on the usability of one-sided blog material, just on the basis of who wrote it, that's divergent from the rest of consensus on this matter, so that one editor agreeing with you on that doesn't really mean much. It's like a Muslim and a Christian agreeing that evolution is wrong and Genesis is fact. "Expert" = "reputable author on a topic"; we have no disagreement. What you're not getting is that being an expert on something doesn't make every utterance you ever make about it a reliable source. RS requires reputable publication as well, and we don't have that with off-the-cuff comments on social media. They can be used for some things, like a celebrity stating what their favorite color is (see WP:ABOUTSELF). It's very iffy to use them for statements of external-to-the-speaker fact of any kind, and they can't be used for this at all if a) the veracity is challenged or b) there's any WP:AEIS involved in the material. If Pucci is parotting facts from elsewhere, he's basically acting as something akin to a tertiary source, but in a primary, unreliable way. If he's getting his figures from somewhere else, we can, too. If the figures are based on his own analysis and synthesis of information, that's AEIS, and we require a reputably published, independent, secondary source for that, as a matter of policy (not guideline). Finally, if the original page is gone, then it cannot be verified, ergo the Disqus link is not a convenience link, it's the actual source we're trying to rely on. TL;DR version: Just find the source(s) Pucci is using, or alternative ones, that have reputable publishers and aren't random Internet-blather.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: All I do on Wikipedia is TV ratings, and that's all I've done in the 2 years I've been here. I know what's available, how much of it's available, and where to find it. You can see that here. There is simply no other source for this information (Live+7 DVR) , hence why I used that source. There are many pages on Wikipedia that use ratings found in the comment section as a reference. You have the belief that a website can be reliable even if the author isn't reliable, and I vehemently disagree with that. A website is only as reliable as its author, and Douglas Pucci (SonOfTheBronx) incredibly reliable. Here are some examples of where The Futon Critic (considered reliable on Wikipedia) used him as a source: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc. Here are some examples of when TV by the Numbers (also considered a reliable source on Wikipedia) used him: [22] Archived 2016-02-20 at the Wayback Machine, [23] Archived 2016-03-12 at the Wayback Machine, [24] Archived 2016-02-20 at the Wayback Machine, [25] Archived 2016-03-12 at the Wayback Machine, [26] Archived 2016-02-20 at the Wayback Machine, [27] Archived 2016-03-12 at the Wayback Machine, [28] Archived 2016-03-10 at the Wayback Machine, etc. It is unquestionably obvious that Douglas is an expert in this field, and even writes articles here, a website run by the respected Marc Berman.

To address the addition you added to your post, I really have a hard time explaining TV ratings to uninformed people, but here it goes: Simply put, DOUGLAS PUCCI DOESN'T GET HIS DATA FROM ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET. He is not parotting facts from elsewhere because he IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE. He receives Nielsen info, and PUBLISHES IT on www.programminginsider.com, where we welcomes requests in the comments. Please look at the 14+ links I gave you above ^^^^, he PROVIDES ratings information, therefore he isn't a tertiary source. Not everything can make it into every single article he writes, so for extra stuff he answers comments requests. I see no reason why these cannot be used because comments from ShowBuzzDaily.com [29] Archived 2015-06-09 at the Wayback Machine are used as sources, and comments from TV by the Numbers [30] Archived 2015-03-17 at the Wayback Machine are used as sources. The comments cited are NOT from readers, they are from the AUTHORS of the article. Common sense dictates that since the same author wrote the article and the comment, the comment is admissible. If there was ANYWHERE ELSE to get the info, I would use that instead, but there simply isn't. Please understand that. Rswallis10 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Restoring comments on user talk page

Per WP:REMOVED and WP:DRC, please do not restore content on user talk pages as you did here. You are also in hot waters from what's going on with Bones, so I'd be careful if I were you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: "Hot water"??? Do you even know what you're talking about? There is a discussion going on right now about the Bones article here, so unless you have something to add to add, I would kindly suggest that you mind your own business. Rswallis10 (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know what I am talking about. I have been following the discussion and I am frankly torn, so I am declining commentary until I am fully on one side. Secondly, I won't mind my business. I have been following what's been going on. I understand what you're saying, but I also understand AussieLegend's perspective. I have as much freedom of speech as those following the noticeboard. If you don't agree with that, then ignore me as I don't care. This is my last comment. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I'm not denying that you have free speech, and believe me, we want as many people in this discussion as possible. But coming to my talk page and saying that I am "in hot waters" is frankly unproductive, and far from the truth. If you want to be a part of the discussion, then please voice you opinion on that page, and don't disrespect me on my talk page. Rswallis10 (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

October 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Alex^TW 00:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Are you dense? I've left messages on 1) the article talk page 2) Brojam's talk page, and 3) the discussion at the manual of style. If you looked at the article talk page, there is agreement that the split should occur, so please undo your reverts and not engage in an edit war yourself. Rswallis10 (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Read the bold points. Simply because you are discussing, does not give you the right to edit-war. You are completely aware that there is a wider-community discussion being held at the moment - you need to gain consensus from that, not from the one editor that agreed with you. If you revert again, you will have violated WP:3RR and may be reported. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 00:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: You're Australian for god sakes, why do you even bother with American television? Why don't you just let the American editors handle this as we are much more familiar with the content. You don't see me getting involved with Australian shit. Rswallis10 (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow, nice to see some WP:OWN mentality. Where article content lies on Wikipedia, a site accessed around the world, that doesn't even relate to nationality. -- Alex^TW 00:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: lol I'm fucking with you - honestly, at this point, I couldn't give 2 shits. Thought I was helping out by creating the list page, but fuck that. If I knew such an easy, simple task would result in this, I would've gone right back to my nielsen ratings. Rswallis10 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

And as I linked to your comment in my discussion to display your mentality, sure, I'm just fucking with you. Cheerio. -- Alex^TW 01:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: If you have to take a joke of mine - and pretend like it's real - to "show" my mentality, in order to win your argument, then you really must have no argument. Cheerio Rswallis10 (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, what do I know? I'm just Australian. -- Alex^TW 01:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: True. Rswallis10 (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)