User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:AussieLegend. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Most of articles are stubbed for expansion. Also I did find some useful stuff on Gerren Keith like where he was born. Most of the information I found on Eric Dean Seaton is on his official website which is on the page. Also, I know IMDB is not 100% reliable but when it comes to credits they have it right about 95% of the time. Just letting you know, Give me some time, Dude. QuasyBoy (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No problems. As soon as you add refs just delete the prod template. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. QuasyBoy (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

About the Jim Drake article, The only adequate references I can find are from IMDB. That the best I can do for now. I'm gonna have to use those, If that's okay with you. QuasyBoy (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not really up to me. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That what I'm gonna have to do then, I'm doing the best I can with it. I know you are just following wikirules, I'm not mad at ya. QuasyBoy (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's always nice to deal with an editor who can appreciate that we do what we have to do. Cheers. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm gonna be careful creating articles now with you watching me, LOL. QuasyBoy (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems they don't want to listen to what I have said to them on their talk page. Feels like I'm hitting my head on a brick wall. Bidgee (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Now they're trying to make it look as if I asked you to revert the edits, even though I made the above comment about four minutes after your undo! Bidgee (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't get over the accusations the Admin made! Bidgee (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Drmargi (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, I tried.--SVU4671 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

At the page for [1]? This guy/gal persists in adding a copyrighted summary of Ep. 301 of Leverage, and could use one of your trademark warnings. Thanks! Drmargi (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I NEED TO TALK WITH YOU, IM Sammywand365 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammywand365 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you know if there are any female admins on this site so I can discuss with them the protection of a specific page? Thanks - FutureMrsBieber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.197.207 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sex is really a non-issue if you're requesting page protection. You should make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection --AussieLegend (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well see, all the guys seem to be Anti-Bieber, and because of their excess vandalism the page has been fully blocked for two months. It's really not fair. Is there an admin who might consider changing the level of protection? - FutureMrsBieber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.197.207 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated List of film directors by name, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film directors by name. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. AussieLegend (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am confused as to why I received this message. I checked; I am neither the creator of this page nor have I touched this page in the last 500 changes, going back more than two years, and I suspect I've never edited this page. (But I would oppose its deletion.) Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The message was added to your talk page automatically by Twinkle. According to the edit history, you did create the page on 21 December 2003.[2] You're entitled to oppose deleteion but the page does fail WP:DIRECTORY. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you up for another merge? I posted a discussion regarding merging List of White Collar episodes, and there's been no opposition; the most active editor has weighed in in favor of the merge. Care to merge it, since I haven't mastered all the steps yet? Sorry to lard the work on you! I'm going to start a similar discussion on Royal Pains, and will do that one myself once I have time to study up a bit. Thanks!! Drmargi (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yet again. You're certainly generous about all this! Discussion underway on Royal Pains. News all 11. Drmargi (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going through the talk page on the main page of episodes and someone said the air dates are not correct. I looked and they are not even correct. Thought to let you know.Checker Fred (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It was stated earlier in the article and doesn't belong in the Criticism section in any case. -72.155.175.114 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That would have made an appropriate edit summary. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that you are continually deleting images that I put up on Wiki. Photos that I take and have the full permission of my good friend to upload, at his request. Today he rang me to ask me to put it up again for him. Prey tell is that a copyright issue for anyone? No. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC).

They are not your images if you claim that a friend requested them to be uploaded. Bidgee (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I took the picture with MY camera, ergo it is my image and after the subject saw the picture he asked ME to upload it onto HIS page —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Oriccle (talk • contribs) 12:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, only one image has been deleted and I did not do it. It was deleted by an administrator because you failed to provide the source and copyright information that was requested in the warning that I placed on your talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

After I noticed the warning, which may have been several days later, as I am not always on Wiki due to other work that I do, I did write this same information on as requested —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Oriccle (talk • contribs) 04:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The information that you added, which I understand was similar to this, was insufficient. The warning added to your talk page included guidelines on how to add the correct information. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, here we go again. Now our splitters have split a too short Castle episodes list without discussion or any substance to the season pages. I've reverted, requested discussion, and tried to do the redirects from the season articles. They appear to be right, but would you mind double-checking to be sure they were done correctly? Sorry to be a nuisance. Drmargi (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, lordy. we're into edit war territory now. I've just run out of reverts and User:RoyalPains11 refuses to discuss. I'm going to initiate a discussion now, but can't prevent any further reverts. Drmargi (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

All fixed now. You'd only missed one edit. I've warned the editor, again. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm learnin! Drmargi (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I have a question about an image I saw uploaded to the article Ryan McPartlin a week ago. I'm not sure where to go with this, but I have seen you do some work with image files, so I thought I'd try you first. The image in question, [3], was taken from the www.hollywoodreporter.com website, yet is listed as "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic". It seemed incorrect to me, because I would think such images from that site would be copyrighted, but I'm not well-versed in all the rules. The file was added by a new editor a week ago, but I was surprised it had survived so I figured I'd ask about it. Can you please check this out when you have a chance? In addition, do you know of a place where I can post "questionable" images for review, rather than bothering you or another editor? Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that. Strange coincidence, CommonsDelinker just found it/got rid of it on its own. Guess it takes a while sometimes for the bot to find them. Thanks anyway. -Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I nominated the image for speedy deletion as a copyvio. I just hadn't gotten back here to reply. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well then, Thanks are in order! Much appreciated. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

o, I have decided that since the The Penguins of Madagascar episode list page is too long. I need season 1 to be a separated season page (not on the episode list page). And for season 2, we could also make it a separated season page. The unaired episodes section will stay as well. So how about that deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon J. Marcellus (talk • contribs) 04:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The page wouldn't be too long if the episode summaries were a reasonable length, an issue I have raised previously on the article's talk page.[4] The "|ShortSummary=" field is not the place for a blow by blow account of everything that happened in each episode. It is for a short summary, as implied by the name of the field. As a guideline, episodes 1-12 are examples of about how long the summary should be for each episode. If the summaries are reduced to an appropriate length, the article will be a long way off being split. Typically, episode lists aren't split for several seasons. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What is your plan for the episode list, Keep the split season pages or keep all the content on one page? I see the GREAT JOB that you are doing in your sandbox. QuasyBoy (talk) 5:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to go in whichever direction is consensus. I've rebuilt the five season articles, but I've redirected them back to the main list for now, as somebody has expressed opposition to splitting the article. I've almost finished the main, combined list. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The combined list looks great, Its better to go with that direction. In my opinion. QuasyBoy (talk) 5:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm attempting to get the series/season labels into the tables there, and those stinkin' Part 1/Part 2 labels out of the title boxes, and am jousting with an IP editor who conveniently only edits to revert these two changes (one of two who have no other edits, but then, we know who it actually is.) I've started a new discussion and tried to get the turkey to discuss to no avail. Would you want to go take a look and see if you can do something similar to what you did on List of Castle episodes to get those two problems fixed? I really, seriously owe you chocolate, big time. Now, how to get it to Oz... Drmargi (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. I'm considering a sockpuppet case for the two IP's and their puppetmaster, as well as one other IP and the second account he used briefly, but want to be sure I have enough evidence gathered. His consistent belligerence and attempts at redirection have made any meaningful discussion pretty difficult, but the accompanying hyperbole has revealed some pretty consistent patterns. I know I've been a pain recently, but you're appreciated! Drmargi (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! I see you tagged Nick Persons for prod, noting that a returning sock added the article. Have you got any more info? There's a rash of these stub articles being created tonight, and if it's a sock, I'll gladly nip it in the bud. —C.Fred (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that I incorrectly tagged it with {{prod-blp}}? (duh!) I only discovered it because I have Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007 on my watchlist and another new report was opened. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I missed that, but then, the prod had been removed by the time I saw it. (Or did I notice it? One of the articles was either prod-bld or db-bio when I got to it. Anyway, looking at the sock report now. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that the prod was removed by a new editor who looks to be another sock from the name. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you change the colors on TSLOD page? - Alec2011 (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a cleanup and based on comments at several other pages, (and even here) they seem better received. More muted colours are generally less distracting and when they are used properly (for example) they are less off-putting than high contrast colours. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I got it. They do look nice.

Hi, I know it's a little pedantic but surely WP:MOSTITLE applies? It does on dab pages (WP:PIPING), why not within a see also section? (Agree completely with the overlinking removal. Should have done that myself.) I'll defer to your experience. Thanks, Jaydec (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to edits such as this, italicising in the prose is fine but the "See also" section is only a list of links to relevant articles and there's no need to italicise there. You'll note that the name of the article is "The Big Bang Theory", not "The Big Bang Theory" - MOSTITLE doesn't apply everywhere. The links you changed refer to specific articles, not the program itself so emphasising the program name by italicising is unnecessary and probably even inappropriate. Although it refers to redirects, WP:NOTBROKEN is somewhat on point here, "it is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]". If the link is fine, don't fix it. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with AussieLegend because of his experience when critiquing prose matters. MOSTITLE does not apply here. Thank you and have a wonderful evening. --Loofus5 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are the correct Prod. Codes from Showfax. - Alec2011 (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a url? Be advised that Showfax is not generally a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You just said "Showfax is not GENERALLY a relaible source" indicating it is a reliable source. I've been posting the Prod. Codes of Hannah Montana Season 3 when I've added episodes, no one deleted them when I added a new episode, and I've gotten them all from Showfax. Showfax deletes the links to the episodes after awhile, I have all the episodes production codes.

No, what was meant by that was it "may" be a reliable source for some things. Unfortunately production codes isn't one of them. Showfax uses preliminary casting information that they get a long time before production starts and things often change between when Showfax publishes information on its website and when the studio actually produces an episode. This is true for both TV and film and is one of the reasons why films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Prodductions codes never change. the only thing that could change from show fax is the title. For iCarly yes were useung showfax for the episodes as they roll out and supporting by tv.com after someone puts it up. when a better source is provided we will take down showfax and tv.com and put up msn when the episode is ready to air by dan the creator. So the only thing we have to do is move them up.Checker Fred (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If the title changes, the production code effectively changes. This has been shown to happen before. I used to think the same as you until it was demonstrated. We don't use unreliable sources until a reliable source is available. If that's happening at iCarly, it shouldn't be. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

it might change but not always but for the episode iSaved Your Life 233-234 it went through a few titles changes First it was called iSplit up, then I discover Dave and Flex and now to the current title. I followed that episode since it went into production and it never changed production codes. just a lot of title changes. There have been a few other titles that I can't pick up that changed titles and now production codes. The only diffence with iCarly and suite life is that we have axcess to the producer, actors and other cast by them twetting and Dan's pics during the week, so the episodes do match up. Since with Dan the creator doing this it is a little easier tut up the episodes. I am just saying.

Okay I found what I was looking for. itunes has a function (don't know if it works) looks like you have to be logged in.

• First, put suite life on deck in the search engine
• Next, pick the season you would want to find the production code for
• Pick the episode you want
• Right click on the episode

go get info

• Click on video at the top, when a little screan pops up
• Finnally, you should see episode id.

Hope this helps for all of the production codes. Checker Fred (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the name of the episode changes, not the prod. code. For instance, here are the episode titles and prod. codes for Hannah Montana as they were released on Showfax:

1. 401: School's In For Hannah
2. 402: Room Room Yeow
3. 403: California Screamin’

Obviously you can tell the Prodeuction Codes stayed the same but the name changed as featured below:

1. 401: Hannah Montant to the Principal's Office
2. 402: Sweet Home Hannah Montana
3. 403: California Screamin'

- Alec2011 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point, which is actually demonstrated by the above examples. Originally "School's In For Hannah" was #401 but then #401 was allocated to "Hannah Montana to the Principal's Office" so effectively the codes have changed. Until such time as a final episode name is released by the production company, the information produced by Showfax can't be counted on as accurate, which means it's not a reliable source. A source can't be unreliable one minute and then reliable the next, which is why Showfax is generally regarded to be unreliable. As I've already indicated, this hass been raised at the reliable sources noticeboard. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up the Windows XP article. The reason I put it back was that I wasn't sure if it was or wasn't vandalism, so I decided to let someone else fix it. Thanks again, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No problems. The editor involved initially added the pdf from which the information was copied but then removed it. He's since partially restored the content claiming it was his own work because he'd hand typed it. Sheesh. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the last episode of Season 2, it's the season finale. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the citation from a reliable source that confirms this? --AussieLegend (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)#

It Is Not The Last Episode In Season 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammywand365 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I am thing this is not right. Someone is going to have to check the production codes out on itunes for the episodes that have allready aired. it does not look right. So maybe protecting this longer intill everything is corrected. I will do some of the checkingChecker Fred (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does it say (References that apply for most episodes) on list of The Suite Life on Deck episodes and TV.com is listed under it? It's been used as a source for other episodes on Wikipedia but now you're saying it's not a reliable source? - Alec2011 (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As a user edited site it's definitely not a reliable source and it shouldn't be used as references for episodic information. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Then should it be taken off the page then as it's not a reliable source? - Alec2011 (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of sources that say Breakup in Paris IS the seasn finale. And those other episodes are season 3 not a continuation of season 2 - ElaineBenes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.9.6 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There are NOT lots of reliable sources. In fact, nobody has been able to find even one. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well here's a couple [5] [6] just to prove it. And in case you didn't know, the airdate was last night - ElaineBenes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.9.6 (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, only one of those may qualify. TV.com is not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows it's the season finale, okay. Another user said you're being really unreasonable. As usual - ElaineBenes

Knowing and being able to verify it are two different things. Wikipedia requires the latter: Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core Wikipedia policy, states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" and we have to abide by that. The editor who said I was unreasonable,[7] thinks it's reasonable to ignore policies. It's not, so he's not really a good role-model. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend,

I've seen different production codes at different sites for the hour long episodes. Some say 207-208 and 229-230 and others say 231 and 232 alone. Many of these sites are not very reliable, like tv.com. Based on the fact that there are 30 episodes in the season, since it seems we are counting the hour long episodes as two now (well maybe not now that I checked it again), I just guessed that 207-208 and 229-230 made sense based on the both the number of episodes in the season, that they are hour long episodes, and those are the four numbers missing from the season's episodes. Since nobody seems to care, cite, or touch the production codes often, I generally just use what tv.com says, but since they have changed for these two episodes a number of times, I just went with what I thought was more likely based on the information I described above. I say deleting the production codes and getting rid of the section is best since they serve no real purpose, like you said. Plus, reliable sources for those codes are not easily found (at least at my end). I'm not even so sure episode summaries are necessary anymore. So often are they poorly written, uncited, copyright violations, etc. Many wikipedia lists don't have them for tv shows, so I'd support just listing the titles, original air dates, writer(s), and director. Same for Suite Life of Zack and Cody. At this point, I'm not going to just go ahead and do it, but if you want to do that as well, I'd completely support it. And could you please advise me about what is going on with the number of episodes for season two? Is it going to be 28 or 30? Are the hour long episodes one or two? What about the five episodes listed after "Breakup in Paris" for season two? Aren't those season three episodes? Thanks for writing. JLKTENNIS43 (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with citing these episodes as two episodes is that they were clearly aired as a single episode with one set of credits so we need a citation from a reliable source to say they are two episodes. It's always problematic and people assume that two production codes automatically means that there are two episodes but that's WP:SYNTH. Getting rid of the production codes altogether is probably best. Regarding the last three episodes, they are season 3 episodes but at the moment we don't have a reliable source to say that "Breakup in Paris" is the last episode of season 2 so we have to treat them as season 2. Once "Breakup in Paris" airs we'll be able to fix it. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now opened a discussion about this at Talk:List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes#Production codes. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, there is no rule stating certain colors MUST be used in certain places. However, the majority of lists of episodes of shows that are not meant specifically for children do this. Since Wikipedia is not about decorating things, to look good, etc., the certain colors used for seasons in List of Jon & Kate Plus 8 episodes, List of Little People, Big World episodes, etc., should be used in all lists of episodes. Same goes with naming the writer, director, and production code of episodes of shows. On lists of episodes of shows not specifically geared toward children, this information is not included. MR. PreZ 16:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong on all counts. There's nothing, other than your personal opinion, to support these claims, which is probably why you have been reverted so many times. There is no restriction on colouring, nor is there any consensus on what colours should be used. The same goes for the fields used. It is counter productive to remove the writers and directors from articles and there is no reason why they shouldn't be included. Wikipedia isn't a TV guide for kids. It's an encyclopaedia for people of all ages. If you want some examples of how episode lists should look, look at the featured lists, not the examples that you have chosen.

• List of 24 episodes
• List of 30 Rock episodes
• List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes
• List of Brotherhood episodes
• List of Carnivàle episodes
• List of Doctor Who serials
• List of Heroes episodes
• List of Lost episodes
• List of Moonlight episodes
• List of Numb3rs episodes
• List of Seinfeld episodes
• List of Smallville episodes
• List of Stargate SG-1 episodes
• List of The O.C. episodes
• List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes
• List of Twin Peaks episodes
• List of Veronica Mars episodes

--AussieLegend (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your template rocks. Had a thought: Template talk:SSCS Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful when using the BLPPROD to be sure that you are only tagging articles with NO sources. IMDB (for example) counts as a source. If you think notability is in doubt, please consider using either a normal PROD or AfD as appropriate.Hobit (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Keeping TV Related Articles From Becoming Overun With Vandalism Star
		For keeping The Big Bang Theory and Mythbusters related articles under control. I hereby award you a barnstar! Sign My Guestbook!·Sumsum2010·Talk 19:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen your name so much in edit histories for Mythbusters articles and The Big Bang Theory I thought I should give you a barnstar! Sign My Guestbook!·Sumsum2010·Talk 19:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I stated "Already talked about it here with reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Hannah_Montana_episodes#Season_four". I meant to say "Already talked about here, but the reference for 101 episodes is in the post. That was my fault. In the edit there is this as the reference to the total of 101 total episodes produced. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is that if you count the number of episodes in the season overview table, it totals 97, not 101, and the totals need to match. I expect that Disney are counting some episodes as two, but we don't have citations confirming which episodes they are, so we're left with different totals and that's going to cause problems. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit is exactly the sort of thing you can expect to reoccur. "|num_episodes=" should match the total episode count in List of Hannah Montana episodes unless you can identify the four phantom episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem, the total episode on the List of Hannah Montana episodes page was posted back in November with a Billy Ray interview, however since then (later after the interview) Disney Channel Officially announced the total episode count meaning more episodes were produced since the Billy Ray interview. We should actually go with the latest source. This is the same problem, we shouldn't use a real person interview as a source (remember the iCarly incident that Nathan said iCarly was cancelled, but he was just kidding). - Alec2011 (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're resorting to WP:SYNTH again. The Disney Channel press release doesn't confirm what you're assuming to be the case. It may mean that but it could also mean that some of the episodes that we've treated as one are being treated as two by Disney. The point is that we don't know. More recent sources don't necessarily trump older sources and there's nothing wrong with interviewing people, especially people with some authority like Billy Ray Cyrus. Cases like this are why we normally go by the number of episodes already aired. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"...episodes that we've treated as one are being treated as two by Disney." If this is what you're implying, then the Season 3 episode would be 31 not 30 as there's a total of 30 episodes for Season 3 as the one-hour special is just one episode, not 2, however there's 2 production codes as it's a special episode that's one-hour long. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You recently requested using {{ImageUndeleteRequest}} that File:Two and a Half Men-title.jpg be restored. I have restored this image and reset its deletion timer. If you add it to an article, please remove the deletion timer. --B (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I saw the rename request so I took care of that too. It's at File:Two and a Half Men-title.png now. --B (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

How so? Besides, you have left references that use TVbythenumbers.com as a source (some have been there since December for GND) but that is just a copy/paste of the information on Pifeedback.com. Not to mention other articles use it as a source, so what makes these two articles different from the rest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattlebird (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS (part of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) tells you why pifeedback.com is unreliable. It's a group of forums and "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". A quick check of WP:RSN archives shows that TVbytheNumbers is also unreliable, which I hadn't noticed previously. As for other articles using theses sources, they shouldn't. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• maybe an idea for the english wikipedia ?

nl:Sjabloon:Navigatie walvisvloot van Japan - User:Arkangel lucifer —Preceding undated comment added 13:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC).

sorry forgot to tell you I have responded Checker Fred (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Afterwriting is trying to assert that "Prime Minister X" should be "prime minister X" despite MOS because "Positions such as prime minister are not treated as "titles" in formal Australian English - unlike in American English." Could you please help sort this out at Prime Minister of Australia? -Rrius (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You already reverted the season pages back to one page, But TyDwiki separated them again: Drop Dead Diva (season 1) Drop Dead Diva (season 2). He/She means well, but separate season pages are not necessary for that series right now. QuasyBoy (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This user Hidividedby5 is ruining everything. --FetchFan21 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

can you add you input here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FetchFan21. FetchFan21 is being accused of sock pupperty can you put your input into the case. Checker Fred (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick response to your edit summary in List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 3): "Sheldon implied that the Microsoft product would be more popular."

Actually, he didn't. He simply said that Raj would regret buying an iPod. Considering Sheldon's character (rational thinker, chooses things based on features rather than just popularity), it's more likely that he simply anticipated the Zune to be technologically superior to the iPod (which it arguably is).

No objections to the edit itself, BTW. Indrek (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Showfax info may not seem trustworthy, but that's all we have right now as far as the production codes go, same goes for Eric Dean Seaton site. As for the director and writers, I got the information from the Disney Channel press release, the same press release that used to add director and writer info for Hannah Montana (season 4). QuasyBoy (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks Cool. :) QuasyBoy (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't no that the conversation was started on another page when I reverted. I'm content waiting to see what happens from the new conversation.Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You've probably noticed this already, but Simulation12 is back... Do you think there is enough evidence for a SPI at this point?

X's Edit Counter is proving to be a great tool to spot his socks. Especially given Checker Fred's list of most edited pages. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed it but I want to give him time to hang himself. I have the SPI drafted on a file on my PC. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I did the merge back from the season articles today, with the predictable errors and growing pains. It all looks right now; would you mind giving it the once-over to be sure I didn't make any errors I can't see? Thank you! Drmargi (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, did you really mean List of Royal Pains episodes‎? I'll get onto it when I have a chance. I'm having issues with an editor who persists in adding uncited claims, complete with {{citation needed}} tag at The Amanda Show right now. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake, what am I thinking? Yes, that's what I meant. No rush, it's all working fine, but I don't necessarily know what "behind the scenes" stuff I might have overlooked. Grazie, and good luck with your current problem! Drmargi (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits once again, and I will report you if you remove the content again. Regarding the note and date, they have been like that for just about a year, and now, all of the sudden, it's a problem? You cannot remove them until a resolution has been reached, which one hasn't yet. A resolution must be reached on the talk page, and when one is reached, whatever was decided is applied to said article. Looking at how you've been acting, it appears that you think that, just because you posted your reasons on the talk page, a resolution has been automatically reached. That is not how it works. If you want said content remove, then you must get others' opinions on it. Your opinions or my opinions just aren't enough to find a resolution. Have a wonderful day! - Donald Duck (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

AussieLegend, if this relates to your removal of the alleged restart date for The Amanda Show, good call on removing it. I've just written a statement on Talk:The Amanda Show on why that text should be removed, after removing it myself. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. It does indeed relate to that. There's also some content at List of The Amanda Show episodes.[8] I've explained what's wrong with it in great detail on the talk page,[9] but he just ignores it. I've been trying to drag this guy to the discussion table for days without success. He just restores the content whenever I remove it and then disappears. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. I've added both articles to my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please feel free to report me. I've been considering reporting you at WP:ANI because I've been trying to get you to enter a discussion for days without success and have become frustrated with your edit-warring. The note and date, by which I assume you mean this hasn't been there for a year, you only just changed the date a few days ago.[10] That aside, as I have previously explained to you,[11][12] it's uncited and Wikipedia:Verifiability is quite clear on the matter: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed." Your assertion that I can't remove them "until a resolution has been reached" is quite incorrect. Having removed the information in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability, the burden is on you to justify inclusion in the article. The same is true for the content at List of The Amanda Show episodes. I have explained at length how the content breaches several policies and all you have done is tried to cite a self-published source in support of a minor point in the offending content, and the source did not even do that. That this content may have been present in the article for some time is irrelevant. That just means that nobody has noticed it until now. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And it has been noticed now, both by AussieLegend and by this administrator. WP:Verifiability puts the burden of proof on the editor who (re-)adds content to a page to source it. Donald Duck, I highly suggest you review my comments in Talk:List of The Amanda Show episodes#MOS compliance, WP:CRYSTAL and original research and discuss the matter further, rather than readding the text. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It is true, it's all over the forums but Wikipedia doesn't take those as reliable source, so I didn't add any cite. You can download them and listen to them, totally sounds Hannah-ish.Josh (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, Wikipedia doesn't accept forums as reliable sources, and for good reason. If you don't have a reliable source for something, you shouldn't add it to Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Following on from your ANI notice about them saw you tagged them as a suspected sock back in June. Can you expand on this on ANI as if there is a suspected sock issue it should be addressed as well as the image problem. Exxolon (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As requested, I've expanded on this at the ANI discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

List of The Suite Life on Deck characters, I figure I'd let you know about the creation of this page, since your a Suite Life expert and all. QuasyBoy (talk) 3:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected it for now, since it's just a copy of what's in the main and recurring characters articles and it hasn't been edited since it was created, meaning it's out of date. It's probably worth looking at some time though. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Guess who's at it again on List of Castle episodes? Time to call in the Marines. Drmargi (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Template:uw-vandalism1|List of Ghost Whisperer episodes}}ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Don't template the regulars and watch what you are calling vandalism because this is not. BOVINEBOY2008 23:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a pretty bold thing to argue that somebody reverting edits that go against demonstrated consensus is vandalism. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think DC Fan 5 is 1989 Rosie? Besides the misuse of the minor edit flag, I've not seen any real bad edit behavior, I mostly edit on different articles. But on User talk:DC Fan 5 there are a bunch of warnings, the first one which was yours, mostly for edit warring which already resulted in a temporary ban. Looking at the contributions the articles edited seem to be the same, DC Fan 5 also has a German account. A fresh start is allowed but only if no existing ban or sanction is in place, not sure if this is still considered sock puppetry, and/or if some steps should be taken. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the personal attack. This editor is also doing so on the talk page for List of Iron Chef America episodes. I'm working on a sockpuppet/SPA case, and have requested help at WP:ANI but so far nothing. Now it's escalating, and I'm genuinely concerned. Drmargi (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 72 hours. I hope that helps a bit. One thing though, as per WP:BLANKING, if a user removes warnings from their talk page, they shouldn't be restored unless they are in the exception list. If an editor removes a warnig, they are deemed to have read the warning so restoration is unnecessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on the warnings. I thought they had to stay until there was resolution. You're the best! Drmargi (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just in response to AussieLegend's comments earlier, I don't believe that I violated the 3RR rule. I only made 3 reverts on July 14. My first edit was not a revert, it was merely me posting my initial message. However Drmargi made 4 reverts, including a revert of the final, corrective edit by AussieLegend, each time erasing my messages in the Discussion page for the article in question. 66.91.73.55 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you breached 3RR is immaterial, you were edit-warring and breached WP:NPA, which is why you were blocked. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I do not personally agree that I breached WP:NPA, I otherwise agree with what you just said. I was only responding to the comments you made about the 3RR on my user talk page, not trying to argue against the block. 66.91.73.55 (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling somebody a lowlife, as you did here is very definitely a NPA breach, as is encouraging users to conduct flame wars on a user's talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can agree with that. However, that edit was made on Drmargi's talk page, not on the Discussion page of the article in question. There was no edit war going on on Drmargi's talk page. I made only one edit (in response to Drmargi vandalizing and edit warring on my own talk page). After he reverted it, I let it be. My post on the Discussion page of the article in question did not contain NPA breaches in my opinion, yet Drmargi reverted/deleted it 4 times. 66.91.73.55 (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA applies equally on user talk pages as it does anywhere else. This edit is both vandalism of List of Iron Chef America episodes and an NPA breach. This one, calling Drmargi's actions "the lowest of the low" on Talk:List of Iron Chef America episodes is an NPA breach. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is clear, "comment on content, not on the contributor." It also says, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor", so Drmargi's removal of such comments was appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "I really believe that editors should have some idea of the subject matter that they're editing and not just what they've gathered from a few google searches. I'm not a brain surgeon so I wouldn't edit an article on Neurosurgery. Im not a mechanic so I wouldn't edit the Internal combustion engine article. I wouldn't even do something relatively minor like edit the Pacific Internet page because I've never used that ISP.

That said, I see nothing wrong with editing articles to remove vandalism, correct spelling errors or carry out any other maintenance task that doesn't require reasonable knowledge of the subject." You happen to subscribe to these tenets? you may recognize the statements. Now, go onto the talk page, that's the normal process when there is no consensus established for a radical or major shift in an article. FWiW,Bzuk (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC).

What the hell are you rambling about? This has noting to do with adding a copyedit tag to an article? --AussieLegend (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You have never edited this article but believed that editors should have some idea of the subject matter of the article? You see major problems and tag appropriately but don't use the talk page until prompted?? This discussion now needs to shift to the talk page of the aforementioned article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC).

The addition of the copyedit tag has nothing to do with the subject matter per se, it has to do with how it is presented. I do know a little bit about aircraft, having been in the Air Force for 22 years and having first learned to fly in 1978, not that these facts have anything to do with the problems that I identified. Anyone who is fluent in English could have identified those. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit from the Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech talk page: "As to writing style, for a hoot, I took one paragraph from the article that I had exclusively written and submitted it to a writing style check. The analysis indicated that the style matched precisely that of: David Foster Wallace (February 21, 1962 – September 12, 2008) a professor at Pomona College in Claremont, California, noted as an American author of novels, essays and short stories. He was widely known for his 1996 novel Infinite Jest, which Time included in its All-Time 100 Greatest Novels list (covering the period 1923–2006). So, you can see that writing style can be entirely arbitrary and capricious. I did the same for some of the other notables on this page and got matches of writing style to "Ursula K. Le Guin", "Dan Brown", "Stephen King", "Kurt Vonnegut" and "James Joyce." Now, for the fun: match up: Silverchemist, Mark Sublette, BilCat, AussieLegend and Binksternet to their writing styles! FWiW, the matches are scrambled, guess your style. Bzuk (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC).

You sure have a strange idea of what constitutes "a hoot". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a novel, so thank you for identifying that the article's writing style needs to be changed in addition to fixing the sentence structure. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not continuing this dialogue as you evidently have not seen the changes to the article and seem to have a knack for casting aspersions and characterizations, rather than doing any serious editing. FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC).

As I indicated on the article's talk page,[13] I no longer have any interest in the article so I don't know why you're posting here at all, or for that matter why you posted in the first place. Your additions here have had absolutely no relevance to the issue that I raised. The problem was sentence structure, not whether or not you need knowledge of aircraft to identify problems with English, or whose writings in an encyclopaedia look like that of which novelist. Had you stayed on topic and not been so aggressive in the removal of a valid maintenance template I might have been interested but I'm not so there is no more to say on the issue. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm making certain modifications to the Big Bang Theory page. Please don't take it as if i am trying to offend you. Please continue reverting it back if you don't consider the changes legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.141.58 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you, please, stop restoring obviously erroneous information on the page? 1. There is no such thing as the saber-toothed 'tiger' - it's a vulgar, non-scientific name for the proper term saber-toothed cat. 2. By the 20'000 years ago (time of the 'Ice Age' action), Neanderthals were extinct. As well as they didn't master making of advanced tools and decorations of the Upper Paleolithic culture we see in the movie. 3. Though Scrat's 'saber-toothed squirrel' species are fictitious ones, linking them to the Leptictidium species, which became extinct by the end of Eocene (35 mln years ago), is stretching things too far, even by cartoon standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.92.203 (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot 4. Animals do not speak English

You need to remember that this is a work of fiction and does not necessarily follow the rules of the real world. In fiction, anything can happen, and usually does. The animals could be driving around in cars and there would be nothing wrong with that. However, the main problem that I have with your edits, as I have explained on your talk page twice now, is that your edits were breaking links and leaving extraneous characters. For example, "Saber-toothed squirrel" became "[Saber-toothed squirrel]". I see that you have fixed this with the latest edits but in future, could you please use edit summaries when making edits, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course animals don't speak English in the Ice Age movie world (or French, Japanese or any other language the move was dubbed to, as well as Proto-Indo-European or whatever proto-language humans were speaking that point of space and time), they communicate via alleged inter-ice-age-spices-Esperanto the humans lost ability to speak on. Remember what Diego told Sid, when he get over-sentimental in the departing with Rohan scene: "Humans don't talk". :)

The big part of the Ice Age movie charm is it's very well researched and amazingly prehistorically correct. Let's not ruin its magic here on Wikipedia pages by the loony-tunes approach.

Thank you for pointing to the importance of the edit summary data, and the link coherency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.92.203 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your report to WP:AN3 regarding the edit war at List of Leverage episodes. 80.82.209.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had clearly violated the three-revert rule. I've blocked that IP for 24 hours, and based on the dynamic IP situation you mentioned, I've added the article to my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

He's already jumped over to 64.111.25.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and reverted once again. Drmargi (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering who you even got involved in the FETCH articles. It seems that the other people you edit the article are from the US. I see that you are from somewhere where it does not air and was just wondering why you edit the page.99.160.58.117 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to discuss this edit with you. The link you provided regarding this error actually does not indicate that you need to provide regions 1, 2, 4. Instead, that page just provides those regions as an example of "all primary release dates". Since there are no release dates for region 2/4, I think it would be best to remove them. Waiwai933 (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Regions 1, 2 and 4 are the primary regions for the subjects covered in the English Wikipedia so the "e.g." should probably be "i.e." and it's customary to include all 3 regions in series overview tables. One of the reasons for this is that it's the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia; all content should be "internationalised". It doesn't matter that the fields are empty, they can always be filled in later, and their presence indicates that the information needs to be provided. Removing the fields only serves to discourage anyone from providing information. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Aussie, if I'm not mistaking, you are an admin. So, I need your help regarding a user. A user named Anikingos is adding fake/uncited/predictions/fan based info in this article. He is continuously adding fake edits and adding CN India airing dates however the channel haven't ever revealed any info regarding this. He himself confessed that all the dates are according to his calculations not officially revealed. The channel have not even completed the 11th season of the anime and this guy is assuming the schedule of season 12. I've tried to stop him but he isn't listening to me and causing a kind of vandalism. So, kindly deal with him. Thank you. ♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 17:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

For more citation and proof, you can check out the official site of Cartoon Network India yourself. The channel is currently airing the new episodes of Pokémon season 11. Sorry for bothering you but I thought an admin can only help me out. ♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 17:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

regarding this edit [14]. if you go to the reference marc is there. at the bottom of the pic it says more pics if you click on the with about 5 people in the pic marc is listed Saylaveer (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Langston Bonasera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rizzoli Isles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am sure their heart is in the right place, but user Langston Bonasera continues to use blog info for names of new characters in CSI:NY and other shows. They have done this before - posting rumours from blogs about new characters and even creating whole pages for them that later had to be removed or redirected when the official info was released. Since I am editing from my IP address, they do not seem to feel they have to pay attention to the "citation other than blogs" notes I leave with my edits, and revert them. I have changed them again, and again noted they were not cited by anything other than a blog (actually, there's no cite at all for the Jo Danville name, but it's been on CSIFiles, which I thought was not recognised as a valid 3rd party source since it's a fan site) but will not a third time to avoid being accused of 3RR. Should I leave a note on their talk page, or would you, as a much more experienced editor like to do so? I respect your opinions and answers. Thanks, Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy so haven't had a chance to do anything about this yet. You're quite correct, something does need to be done. I'll get to it as soon as I can. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Aussie. LB has changed their name, but is still putting up pics under the old one. Just keeping you up as to what is going on. Hunster is aware also. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried to walk there today ? It IS an island. You have too many defects to even bother debating with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eregli bob (talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, No personal attacks and be civil. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I realise that Fingal Island is not official. I looked it up too. It's like that around here - people, albeit less and less (rather like "soccer" ;-), call the locality "Grantham Heights". The GNB does not recognise it. The GNB only seems to get off their fundament is when a property developer decides they want a locality renamed to fit their marketing plan. (Property developers don't seem to like any name with historic or indigenous connotations (Pemulwuy being an exception that proves the rule).) Seven Hills covers a huge area and people in the area really did want the change but the GNB wouldn't grant it despite the fact that "Grantham" was associated with the area historically. I dare say if the sea level keeps rising they might give it a name that is more to the point, like "Tomaree Island". Silent Billy (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Property developers can call areas whatever they want but it's normally the local councils who register the names with the GNB and the GNB generally follow the wishes of the councils. That said, in the 1990s Newcastle City Council registered a number of areas according to the popular names for those areas, which generally followed the name that developers had given the subdivision. In Port Stephens, Brandy Hill was registered as a suburb because that was the popular name, even though the actual hill called Brandy Hill lies outside the suburb, in Seaham. I've spoken to council about "Fingal Island" but they don't want to register it as Fingal Island because it's not an island. They don't want to call the whole thing "Point Stephens" as they want that name to be limited to the site where the lighthouse is located. For now, it has no official name. It's just part of the suburb of Fingal Bay. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not arguing that you are right. Just pointing out that there's a difference between local usage and official usage. Property developers can call areas whatever they want but it's normally the local councils who register the names with the GNB - yes but plenty of developers get the council/GNB/state govt to change the name of the suburb "Winston Hills" being the classic example. Silent Billy (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User 71.60.75.153 keeps putting Jo Danforth and Kacey Monahan in the respective CSI pages without any citations at all, and the only place these names have been listed is CSIFiles. The User has been warned about edits in Law and Order: SVU, and replied "block me then". Can you check on this please if you have a chance? Thank you, Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I tried explaining, but now this user is in violation of 3RR and on their talk page says they will keep reverting without cites, they do not care. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested Temp Semi Protect. Had trouble trying to navigate the 3RR reporting. Sorry Aussie, I know you are busy. But I do not think they will listen. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the editor's history, I realise I've come across them before so I'll be watching more closely. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert, and thanks for the explanation. Coincidentally, I had just learned about cite episode in the last couple of days but hadn't had a chance to really study it. Clearly, what you did was kosher, although, honestly, it seems incestuous to me, particularly because the article on the finale has no source for when the series "ends." That said, I am very tired of people changing the end of the series to 1980 (I have watched the episode), so if your cite helps, I'm all for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It can be a tad confusing, since the cite does link to the episode article, but the main thing is that it points you directly to the time within the episode. I never actually got into the program when it was on air, but I'm literally watching it now, (Season 2, episode 2 as I write) and the countdown was easy to check. I was surprised when looking through the article history that people have changed the start date too. Hopefully the citation will at least reduce the problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for pitching in. I picked up on the #ep business you were doing. I didn't know it existed - helpful. I guess the term inverted commas is Australian (Americans call them quotation marks). I'll let you put them wherever you wish. Without checking, I'm sure you're right. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Pancake (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

AussieLegend -- hi, it's me, madkoch -- we were talking a couple of weeks ago about the entries for the G8 Research Group and the G20 Research Group. Can you please tell me where things stand...? What should I do to try to keep those entries alive? If you look at my talk page I responded to your last suggestions. Thanks! Madkoch (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted my addition of Ross Gittins to the "Famous Alumni" section of the article on Newcastle High. I have a bit of a love / hate relationship to that school, and it was my high school. Back in those days, it was selective, and the only such school in the Newcastle area. You noted with your deletion that the current Newcastle High is NOT the successor of Newcastle Boys High, and that Newcastle Girls High is. But, with respect, I am wondering how this comes about. The article clearly states that the current Newcastle High is the successor of three schools, including both the Boys and Girls High Schools that existed prior to 1976. Why is NGHS a legitimate ancestor of the current school, but not NBHS? As it stands now, there is no school in WP to which the "old boys" can collect historical material, and make a decent article, even though there is probably more interest by matriculants in that school than just about any other in the Newcastle area. Moreover, the current school has inherited both the badge and the motto "Remis Velisque" that I remember so well.

There seems to be some confusion as to which schools are the descendants of which earlier ones. Presently, there is virtually nothing on the page nor in the Talk areas, which is surprising when you see how much there is for other old schools. Do you think we can get to clear this up. As an old boy of the school, I would like to participate in some communal effort to get a good article going on NBHS. Myles325a (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that Gittins is a male who is too old to have attended the school because when he was at high school it was an all-girls school.[15] I'm assuming that Gittins was born a male of course. Newcastle Girls High and Newcastle Boys High were completely separate entities at different locations. Students of Newcastle Boys High can't be considered to have been students of Newcastle High because they didn't attend that school. Nor was any of the infrastructure transferred from NBHS to NGHS/NHS. I know that because I attended NBHS and left after I completed my HSC at the end of 1977, 10 or 11 months (I can't remember the date) after the first Waratah High School students entered the school. The school just changed names. Even our HSCs were labelled "Waratah High School". NHS is just the last of a family of schools that shared a sometimes common history. The common root is Hill High. NGHS split off from that in 1929 as a separate entity, although uniform colours and the motto carried on to the new school. NBHS started at Waratah in 1934 and Hill High continued on as Newcastle Junior Boys High until 1973. NBHS, using the same motto, colours and school song, survived a further 3 years until it lost its identity and became Waratah High. Meanwhile, NGHS continued on and is the only one of the three schools left to carry on with the colours and motto. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to discuss this if we can. "Table changes are unnecessary and introduced errors. Citation wasn't the problem The problem was and will continue to be the addition of OR and deliberate vandalism, primarily by IPs.)"
The Hannah Montana "Series overview" table is the only one from the Disney Channel Original Series (as well as other popular shows) to look like that. They all should look the same from page to page.
What did you mean by the second part of your edit "Citation wasn't the problem The problem was and will continue to be the addition of OR and deliberate vandalism, primarily by IPs."? - Alec2011 (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule that says tables have to look the same and it's a big call to say that it's the only program "(as well as other popular shows) to look like that." There are quite a few episode lists with the same table format and many with formats quite different to the Disney Channel shows. There were a few formatting errors with the table you added, as well as some date errors so perhaps that's a good thing. Regarding the comment about the citation, it means exactly what it says. There is nothing wrong with the citation; it's from reliable, third-party (independent), published source, just as Wikipedia:Verifiability requires, and it directly states that there will be "11 episodes and a special one-hour series finale". Unlike Hannah Montana, where people were removing the Disney citation, which is a primary source, and substituting the supported, total episode count from List of Hannah Montana episodes, at List of Hannah Montana episodes the changes being made were borderline or deliberate vandalism, which is nothing to do with the citation itself. The changes being made were not supported by any reliable source and the hidden comment was often changed to support the OR episode count despite the citation, as was the case with this vandalism, which you'll noticed was a registered account, not an IP, which is why I said "primarily by IPs". Removing a valid citation won't stop vandalism so the problem is not with the citation but with vandalism which, unfortunately, we'll never stop. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. What I mean to say about the tables is that no other tables have the "Color" covering up the Season 1, 2, etc. numbers. On other tables, it's as skinny box next to the number (which it was before someone made the colors cover the numbers), which does look messy. That's the only part I wanted to change, however the table would've been messed up so I changed the format. I was sure the dates were correct as I copied them from the other table but I guess I messed them up so that was my fault.

About the other question. I thought you were just saying in the comment that you were just pointing towards me, but I misread it. I think you mean that it was other people that were saying that 85+12=96 no 101 so my source isn't right. Both are reliable one's from Disney one is not however has proper information. Do you think we should just remove the citation anyway and keep the episdoe count a "TBA" as it's being vandalised and that DIsney could've extended the season. If the episode count does go past 12 episodes then the source wouldn't have been right, however was used on the website though. - Alec2011 (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You said I removed the citation needed on the whale wars page. Those things are sometimes not needed. everyone knows the show airs on animal planet. what happened to the hidden comment feature were i would delete a citation needed and put a hidden comment for you to read. allot things have been removed with this new upgrade.--F4280 (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't remove maintenance templates without good reason and I don't think the challenge was to something so obvious as it airing on Animal Planet, so that's not a valid reason. The challenge was more likely about the dates and times. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Aussie- You need to calm down, Wiki is a FREE information website and I posted comments and edits that ARE PROVEN TRUE, I apologize for what happened to your page but it was an accident. I think you need to get off the computer a little more and go outside to the real world. Sorry, but its true.

The comments were not proven true, that's the problem. The citation that you added did not in any way support the claims that you made, as I explained in my edit summary and on your talk page.[16][17] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Aussie, I finally went over and checked out your user box page. My grandmother was Irish and I'm married to a Scot, so I confuse my co-workers with "non-American" English occasionally. I also very much liked that there were not enough userboxes for you to use. Just thanking you for the laugh...I very much needed it today. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could be of service. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"This Zen userbox is because Trista really likes Aussie's extreme overuse of userboxes and wishes there were more for him!!!!" T. 24.176.191.234 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem might be the user (we both know who it is - Law and Order: UK is the most recent example of the fair use problem with them) does not seem to understand that just because they bought the DVD does NOT mean they can do what they want with the photo on the box. Perhaps this is because of age and lack of understanding of copyright laws. Perhaps if it is explained purchasing the DVD does not give one the right to use images on the packaging as one wishes, it would be helpful. Otherwise, I believe the problem will continue. I am still trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that this person is acting in good faith, but if after explaining it as above - if they continue to ignore the advisories and warnings and simply blank them or tell people to stop complaining about their posting of copyrighted images from their DVDs, perhaps a stronger action is in order for them. (PS, I left their name out, in an attempt to be nice and afford them some privacy....even though anyone who really wanted to know who they are can research it, but I am positive you know of whom I'm referring) Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey I have a question isn't a summary that is putted in the episode isn't that copyright violation. --MikeySalinas17 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, AussieLegend, I just wanted to note that I had a GOCEinuse tag on this article and had to (painfully) resolve an edit conflict during a copyedit, which that banner is meant to avoid. I would really appreciate it (as would other copyeditors) if you would try to heed our markers while we're working. Of course, you're welcome to use them, as well. I generally open a section on the talk page of longer articles that I am editing, so that I can track my own progress and allow others to provide their input for the edit (I had done this for this article).

One conflict that I ceded to you was the spelling of 'canceled'. Both versions, with a single and double 'l', are permissible, so, since you prefer, and seem geographically closer to the subject, I have left it as you modified it. On the other hand, thank you for hyphenating 'story-lines' and 'time-slot'; I was unsure of how to resolve those.

Thanks! Paulmnguyen (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

When I made my edit there was no tag in the article, You added that four minutes after my edit was made.[18] Your resolution of an edit conflict was half an hour after that. Regarding "canceled", it may be permissible in the U.S. but in Australian English, "canceled" is not correct. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I can't argue with the timeline there, and I was surprised to find an edit conflict, especially since the conflict was outside of the section I thought I was editing... I must have opened the page for editing and not touched it while I read through the article in another tab. I'll be sure to do things in the right order now. It wasn't that tough of a conflict to resolve, after all. Paulmnguyen (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a note on Coast guards in Australia regarding the unification under Marine Rescue NSW, but I am not knowledgeable enough to take it any further. Perhaps you would like to take a shot at it? I made two suggestions in the talk page, either to update the page or to create one for the current state and one for the history. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know they were copyrighted thanks for the warning. --72.178.210.53 (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You should assume that all website content is copyrighted unless you can find a clear statement on the website stating that it isn't. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --72.178.210.53 (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to revert the uploaded file to the old page, but it wouldn't take. The file is at Homicide: Life on the Street. Sorry, Aussie - I did try to take care of this myself before bothering you. Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe LB simply turned around and uploaded the file again! Users such as this have me almost ready to quit Wikipedia, as they refuse to take any direction, and just revert things back. I read the reporting criteria, and since I have been involved, I am not so sure it is appropriate of me to file a report against LB. But I'm very tired of this teenager who will not follow rules. Sorry, I'll shut up now and wait to hear what you think I should do - or should I just sit back and let you or someone else deal with this. Thank you very much Aussie. Cheers, Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the change and warned him. I've followed that up by initiating an ANI discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that Two and a Half Men cite; I only used CBS Express because the dummies at the Futon Critic put that episode down initially as episode #803 on Oct 4. I figured they'd fix it or MSN would catch up and add it to theirs, but I must've forgot about it. KnownAlias contact 00:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't we stop using pifeedback as a source since it's a forum and thus not reliable? ChaosMaster16 keeps adding them. Even when there's already a source saying the same number he adds them as a secondary source. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 05:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we did stop. There was even an ANI discussion about Chaosmaster usin pifeedback.com --AussieLegend (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I thought so. It seems ChaosMaster16 still isn't convinced and keeps using pifeedback, apparently he wants to do a straw poll "to actually get a consensus". _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted his most recent addition at List of The Vampire Diaries episodes and left a message on his talk page. Please feel free to do the same elsewhere if you find pifeedback.com used but if you do, could you post the diffs of his additions here. I can see us ending up back at ANI over this. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's mainly List of Hellcats episodes now. At List of Nikita episodes he added it just to add it, he hasn't reverted the removal of it. At List of Hellcats episodes he updated the numbers, later a press release from The CW came out saying 3.0 million, which he reverted multiple times, and now seemingly dropping it most likely for the polling time, still seems to object the press release in favor of the TV by the Numbers post just because it has an extra known digit. He also claimed pifeedback isn't a forum in this edit summary. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The latest ANI discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637#Problematic user: ChaosMaster16 (Again) - Yet again. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think this problem is big enough, and the site has no foreseeable value here, you might consider applying for blacklisting at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Just make sure to read through the top bulleted list and see if one of those options would work as opposed to this last resort. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I wasn't really sure which direction to head. There is consensus at WP:RSN that pifeedback is not relaible and this has been supported by comments at two ANI discussions so we really shouldn't be using it anywhere. An edit filter might get it but we should be removing uses of pifeedback everywhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:AussieLegend. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10