User talk:TH43

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of 7th Heaven DVDs, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: List of 7th Heaven DVDs was changed by TH43 (u) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2009-08-25T01:03:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page List of 7th Heaven DVDs. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Chevy Impala 2009 01:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to List of 7th Heaven DVDs. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Chevy Impala 2009 01:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to List of 7th Heaven DVDs. Chevy Impala 2009 01:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "fix a problem?" Don't you know that you're actually blanking the page? You may have been caught on the tag filter by doing that. Kindly explain what are you intentionally trying to do rather than just blanking a section. Chevy Impala 2009 01:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Jake Wartenberg 01:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

18 Kids And Counting

Duggar is pregnant. The child has not yet been born. Until such time as the child is born, it does not belong in the list of the Duggar Family's children in the 18 Kids and Counting article. Please stop re-adding it after multiple independent editors have reverted your change. The consensus is to not list the 19th child until s/he is born. Further re-adds of the information will constitute vandalism of the article. - Ageekgal (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8

[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Jon & Kate Plus 8. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC) You seem to be correct althogh it does look unreadable. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing 8 as Ei8ht, is not really clear as far as readability goes. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I re-instated it. Another editor decided that it wasn't correct and has changed it back. Personally, I think it shouldn't be used because it is not easily readable even if it is how they promote the show. But I don't care either way. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The color change is necessary as it demonstrates a large dramatic change in the show. The focus on the show is changing, and its helpful to show what point that happened exactly. It makes it easier to see with the color and really doesnt take away from anything. Grande13 (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Ei8gt" should not be used as it is original research. You've claimed in an edit summary that the sources are saying this without actually citing any, yet I have yet to find a single one. On the other hand, I've found numerous reliable sources saying it will be "8", which makes sense given the current name, so you're going to have to do better than simply claiming the awkward spelling is correct. --13² 19:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears we're getting mixed messages. The source I cited and many others are saying "8" while many others are also saying "eight". So no, I'm not wrong, it's just more complicated than previously thought. We'll probably need to list both since there's so much conflicting info about the title. Rest assured, once the title officially changes, TLC will update their site and that's the name we'll use. (Also, please try to leave messages at the bottom of my talk page; it took me forever to figure out that you left the new message in the middle of it. Thanks.) --13² 20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I had already cited it. I used ABC News as the source for that one. Since then, I've also found, well, all of these and I was starting to work them into citations when you left your most recent message. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to continue working on it and will come back later this evening. Both names, however, do need to be mentioned, whether or not TV Guide is usually reliable since there are other reliable sources saying otherwise. The only definitive source for this info is TLC and they haven't actually released anything yet. --13² 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, TLC finally has a source now for this and it's the only one we need. According to TLC, the show will be called "Kate Plus Eight". I'll work it in. --13² 20:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is still a valid link and a valid source. TLC removing the page does not mean it is no longer a valid source. Stuff like this is why we use access dates in the citation tag. --13² 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is a chance that it'll be "Kate Plus 8" (if it even airs again), but, right now, the best source we can go off of lists it as "Eight". If TLC starts listing it on their site as "8", then it can be changed, but the announcement is all we have to go off of for now. --13² 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is Google's cached page. --13² 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor did I imply you did. In your own words: "Go back and read what I wrote, again." I said what I did specifically because I couldn't find another link. The cache is the best I've found so far. I wanted to make it very clear that, even if we couldn't find another source on TLC, the original was still valid and there isn't an imperative reason to find another one. --13² 20:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

the color change should stay. The show is getting a significant change, title and all. Yes, jon will be around, but obviously not much otherwise they would keep his name in title. ALso, the focus will be on her and the kids and her as a single mother and how she gets by after being divorced. The slight color change will help users identify easier where the change in format occured. Grande13 (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

first it is a reliable site, and I believe you probably were told that in the past for airdates. This is an article.... even tvguide says http://www.tvguide.com/News/TLC-Introduces-Kate-1010289.aspx "it will also include a deeper focus on Kate as a single mother".Grande13 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Jon & Kate Plus Eight episode "Movie Night" is the third episode of Season 4, so please leave it there! TH43 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" No it is not. It is the 27th episode of season 3. http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/jon-and-kate/season-3-episodes-tab-02.html It is also on the season 3 dvd http://store.discovery.com/detail.php?p=85103 (Americanhero (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

I realize that TLC does not put them in the order they aired and do not understand it either. I guess this is an argument of what the definition of "season" is. The order in which they aired or what TLC says. Since the show is aired on TLC, by definition, they can say whatever they want about what the seasons are. So I think that the episode guide on TLC is the "official" episode guide and should be used here as well. (Americanhero (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm not saying we should delete the air dates. You can still keep the air dates that are currently here, just change the episode numbers and some of the ordering. There is no rule that episode numbers and air dates have to match and that air dates are the official way to define when a season starts and begins. Let me give you another example. TLC recognizes the Emeril as the 100th episode. However, in reality, it is the 97th episode. But because TLC says it is the 100th episode, it is "officially" the 100th episode. My point is that TLC/Discovery can order the episodes however they want because they own the rights, etc. and that even though the way they've done it is pretty dumb, wikipedia should acknowledge it as official and correct. (Americanhero (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

Ok, I won't change the way it is now, but I'm going to add a See Also section and provide a link to TLC's episode guide. Just if people care about the official guide and how they appear on dvds. (Americanhero (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

Thats only half true. Any respectable tv episode guide website will list the episodes by official episode guide provided by the network. For every show except jon and kate, this happens to be by airdate. Both itunes (don't know how to link it but search Jon and Kate on itunes if you care) and tvguide http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/jon-kate-plus-8/episodes-season-3/287169 use the official episode guide. But the way TLC's method is so dumb, I don't care anymore and will just leave everything as is. Except I noticed that Sextuplet's Fourth Birthday episode is actually named Sextuplet's Turn 4! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XDWy58eIf4 pause at 1:19 at you'll see the title. (Americanhero (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. TLC doesn't have an official episode guide for 18 and counting and table for 12 (at least I couldn't find it). All I could find was the Season 1 and 2 dvd for 18 kids and counting and for the most part it matches with the episode guide on wiki, except "And Baby Makes 18" is included in season 1 and "A Very Duggar Wedding" is included in season 2, though both do not appear on any dvd. But those could be considered "Specials" I guess. (Americanhero (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Still not sure of the point you're trying to make or how this applies to Jon and Kate plus 8. (Americanhero (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

90210

I don't get your point. Bottomline is there's already a characters page for 90210, Characters of 90210. There. And the reason that the recurring section is removed and the starring is not is because the starring actors don't always star (could be replaced or new ones come). There's a page for both recurring and starring but the starring section is kept due to importance. DantODB (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 18 Kids and Counting episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. See also WP:Own Martin451 (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Redfarmer (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the other user contacted you or not. You need to discuss your changes before you make them if other users disagree. The next time you revert the page, you will be banned. Redfarmer (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, you made an edit that was controversial, therefore, you MUST discuss it. See WP:3RR. Judging by the above, though, it seems you have a history of such behavior so you're probably aware of all of this already. Redfarmer (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Characters of 90210! However, before you submit the changes, it would be helpful for you to spellcheck and copyedit your changes. Please feel free to look at the Wikipedia Manual of Style for tips. Generally, we try to keep the articles looking like a article in an encyclopedia would. Thanks again! Feel free to contact me on my talk page. --GorillaWarfare ^talk 22:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

references for jon and kate episodes

as standard policy on wikipedia you need references for all things in future until AFTER they air. It doesn't matter if you believe different and feel one can look at tvguide for recent listings as thats just your weird belief. Please follow policy as the page is not intended to be a tvguide and things can't be confirmed for sure until they actually air. If things or episodes in this case dont have a source then they will be removed. Grande13 (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I had to end up removing a few episodes because they didnt have any sources? How do i know they are legit?Grande13 (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia isnt a tvguide. although if you are going to list episodes like a tvguide does the episodes need current references until they air as there can always be last minute changes. Yes you can look at a tvguide, but then if thats the case you dont even need the episode list page...regardless things on wikipedia must be sourced until they air, otherwise people can add whatever they want and there needs to be a way to confirm things. Grande13 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

its an easy step to do to help prevent vandalism. If all unaired episodes have references then its harder for someone to put in fake info, and if they do it can easily be checked with reference link Grande13 (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

anything without a reference will now be tagged as such until it airs. I'm not sure why you are arguing this as its wikipedia policy...i'm not sure what you mean when you said you've been doing this for longer....i've been doing this the last 4 years... anyways your method by having unreferences future episodes goes against policy and will be tagged as such in the future if you feel like removing them againGrande13 (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Smallville

The Wonder Twins are mentioned as part of the overall plot of that episode they appear in - because we have a plot description for it. We don't have a plot description for MM's appearance, so just saying he's in it has nothing to do with the plot. Put Zatanna with MM in the "New Characters" (which should probably be changed to "New and returning characters") - as that was where I moved the MM info that you added. There is mention of other returning characters in that section (it's in the first paragraph I think).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware, that was why I removed the episode numbers from the table (they say TBA), because I know Kryptonsite lists one between them but we haven't gotten news on it yet.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Kryptonsite is a fansite, and unless they talk to someone specific in an interview we cannot use their information (because it comes via scooper reports). Wikipedia is not a reliable source, because we cannot cite ourselves. Now, unlike Hawkman (where we have a source that clearly identifies his alter ego) and Stargirl (who's only had 1 alter ego her entire existence), Dr. Fate has had several different people behind the mask. You said "click the link", but you are apparently missing the huge list (Alter ego - Kent Nelson, Eric & Linda Strauss, Inza Kramer Nelson, Jared Stevens, Hector Hall, Kent V. Nelson) that is on that page of all the different people that have been "Dr. Fate". Since the source that identifies the character and the actor don't identify which personification of Dr. Fate Smallville will be using, we cannot just assume that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

B-Class

Yo TH43. Okay this is the deal I have seen your edits you provide a good arguement I was hoping if you could help me clean up the Battle for the Cowl page and make it B-Class. Please reply back. --Schmeater (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay go on the Battle for the Cowl talk page. There a template will be there saying that the article has been rated Start-Class. Underneath it shows what we need to do to make it B-Class which is a higher class, this means the article will be in a better shape and quality. I am making it a bit more like Blackest Night right now. Please reply back. --Schmeater (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they do count. I liked your edits and I am going to keep them but will switch their spots around. Right now I suggest that we focus on coverage.

This should show the criteria now maybe this will help me a bit more than it will help you, I think you should help me with the coverage if you can. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Assessment ]] go to 2.1 Quality Scale that should help. I looked at I am attempting to fix coverage. Please reply back. --Schmeater (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

18 Kids

Hello, TH43. You have new messages at Thirteen squared's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

B-Class Battle for the Cowl

Comicsproj

This is the template that is on the discussion page. I hope this helps. Please reply back. --Schmeater (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay that is not the template from discussion page, it is one that looks exactly like it. There is just one minor detail, on Battle for the Cowl it has a check mark on for referenced; we just need to focus on what I mentioned earlier. --Schmeater (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So were you able to make some sense out of the info? Please reply back.--Schmeater (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gossip Girl character

Stop putting in their first names. You can't even pronounce "Nathaniel" right. Also, for the characters, use "-"s, not ","s. Like Georgina. What's the point of "1, 2, 3" if you can use "1-3", and that's if she's out of the show which she's not, she's still appearing, but not for the season. Stop messing with the page. Some of your contributions mess the page up, it's not exactly helping. DantODB (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Gossip Girl's official website and CW's website already stated that their names are what I put just like "Jenny Humphrey", not "Jennifer 'Jenny' Humphrey". Well if you think that their full first name is needed then make your own site, just don't put your opinion that is against the real facts on Wikipedia. It's not up to you whether the full first names are needed or not. It is up to the creator of the show and I'm pretty sure that's not you so if you edit it one more time, you will get blocked for who knows how long. Bye, good luck getting a life ;) DantODB (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 2 weeks from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — DantODB (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So you think the first full names are needed? Well I disagree. If what you put in the page are true, how come you never put in sources? You think if they call each other by their first full name then it should be put down there? I think it's just you. Fan sites doesn't even write the character names that way, let alone the official websites. So if the official websites list their names as what I put then why is Wikipedia doing it differently? Oh that's right, because you keep messing with it. If you can't provide a source then leave the page alone or else you will get blocked for a longer amount of time. DantODB (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? If Gossip Girl's official website itself doesn't say their first full name is needed on the characters' page then why is Wikipedia doing it differently? Oh that's right, it's because you keep changing it. If you think it's needed then take it up with the show's creators then you can bring it here if it's already approved. Here we only put sourced facts. Like I say their full first names are not needed and I have sources and they are the CW's website and Gossip Girl's OFFICIAL website. What's yours? Oh, also, if you think the full first names are needed then why don't you do it for the actors as well like "Edward "Ed" Westwick"? It's the same thing right? DantODB (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Now, I see your point. Actually I do watch the show. I love Penelope, Hazel, Is and Nelly! Well, we both have sources then, right? Well our source doesn't match with each other. Mine is the official websites and yours is the references to their dialogues in the show. Well you got it from the show, right? Then why the SHOW's official websites doesn't have their first full names like you said, that proves it's just you. And your "source" is just what they say in the show. I can also do that. I can put "Serena "S" van der Woodsen" and "Blair "B" Waldorf" too, right? But I won't because it's not precise. Just because they say it it doesn't mean it's needed. Besides, they already got their first full names on their separate pages so it will be okay if we put the nick name, as cited, only. DantODB (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Smallville episodes

It's been corrected. It was a coding issue that was sending it to the top, as it should have been at the bottom.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Stephen Rea. 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. Ωphois 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please for the love of God, Mary and the lamb, quit messing up how the references are done. They are done correctly. See WP:CITE. —Mike Allen 22:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Murdoch Mysteries

In your edit [1] how come you removed citations supporting information in the article? Nfitz (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Mike Allen 20:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Law & Order, you will be blocked from editing. Redfarmer (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I will if you don't stop deleting sources. If you want to rewrite the section, be my guest. Outright deletion of sources is not acceptable, however, especially when you're replacing the sourced statements with unsourced. All of this is policy, per WP:CITE. I stand by my warning. Redfarmer (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unite characters, you will be blocked from editing. —Mike Allen 23:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Repeated Vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TH43 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Redfarmer (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)