User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 8

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Happy Holidays, AussieLegend! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a very Merry Christmas and happy editing in the year ahead! MarnetteD | Talk 20:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that things were very frustrating for you just recently. I am very glad that you chose to stay around your work here is much appreciated. Hang in there. MarnetteD | Talk 20:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have back reverted your revert. If you do not understand why Richard Hofstadter, american physics Nobel prize, is relevant to Leonard Hofstadter, fictional character, and high IQ'd, american physics Ph D., it sure tells a lot about your IQ, but not much else. Please remember that when you are faced with a diff you do not understand, it is a better choice to first go and read the references proposed to you, and/or look for more, than blindly revert without trying to understand the world that surrounds you. The fact that you are (or not) australian, and a TV-addict (or not) are no excuses, this is Wikipedia, not your favorite TV newspaper. Regards. --Environnement2100 (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

NOA: Second warning about edit-warring and NPA left on editor's talk page[1] and discussion opened at Talk:Leonard Hofstadter#Robert & Douglas Hofstadter --AussieLegend (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Montana was bad enough, but can they not just leave the poor chihuahua alone? Oh, the humanity! It's terrible!

I, Katie, have swooped my sarong over the chihuahua and he's safe for three weeks. The same to you, dear friend, to protect you from those chihuahua haters who would do you harm. Well, maybe not with this sarong, but with the one I shake for superhero mice.

It's cold and windy here, and I'd love to see some of your Christmas summer sometime. Merry Christmas, and thanks for the good work you do around here - it's appreciated! :-) KrakatoaKatie 00:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Per this, I've range blocked 108.17.96.0/20 for a month. Another part could be 108.32.0.0/17, but I'm hesitant because of some useful edits from that range. Cheers and Merry Christmas. Materialscientist (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, glad you managed protect request; I was still trying to work out how to do it and (almost) everyone is on holidays. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)).

yeah it gets inneresting when there seems to an inert watch page and no familiar admins in sight :( SatuSuro 04:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

@Crusoe Don't you have Twinkle? --AussieLegend (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I am member number (quite low, but admit to 1960s) of ACS which means I am now technologically inept! Compliments of the season. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)).

Okay I know facebook is really not a RS but a primary source. I was going throught the FETCH site and came across FETCH's facebook link [2]it is at the bottom of the Page. Now On one of FETCH's post on facebook [3]. They are saying things that it could come back for a 6th season but they won't know for several months if it is a go. Any way i am in no hurry to change anything at this time to Hiatus but if that is the case and when it does come time due I have to put the pbs reference with the facebook reference or will the facebook reference be fine and just leave a note on the page or something. And if it is a comment from Ruff leave the date and time when it was posted. If that does happen I do plan keep some of the cancelation section and changing it to title to A long year Hiatus or something and rewording in someway. 99.19.14.106 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a question. What if it is never publicly announced that the season finale will be the thirteenth episode, but it airs anyway. Would we just not put it up since it's uncited? --DisneyFriends (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The chance of us not knowing when the finale airs is about the same as the chance of the sun not rising tomorrow. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that, it's just what if the only news prior to the actual air of the finale is videos that appear on Disney Channel? Would it just be called the thirteenth episode until a news site or Disney Channel officially releases a press release about it?--DisneyFriends (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, until it's confirmed that it's the finale, it's just the thirteenth episode. --02:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Please see my points on the talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not a fan of assigning a random colour pallet to a group of related shows. The shows i edit in the CSI world don't carry the CSI pallet. Someone had half-done just that with NCIS LA s1 a few hours ago (the header but not the line colours or infobox). You matched it in the ep list. I undid both. Then i went through NCIS DC and removed all of the "#x" and "million" from the episode lists for redundancy and also assigned the seasons colours based on a spot in the upper left corner of the N in NCIS on the DVD cover art which is unique to each season (cover art background wouldn't work as there is repetition and close similarities between some seasons). I also removed the link from the title of the infoboxes because it is a little bit odd to link to a transcluded summary on a different page of the content of the page where the link is found. Other than that the content remains the same except for increasing the episode count to 173. I did notice that the ratings data for season 6 is overnights whereas all from previous seasons sourced to CBS is finals. If you want to change it there should be CBS Weekly Top 20 or 25 on TVBTN for that tv season. If you want to upload US cover art for the seasons you will find that the colours i have used do indeed fit with more than just seasons 4-6 which already have cover art uploaded. That reminds me i also changed the caption on season 4's image as it is DVD cover art but it said it is the title card. If you don't object to this i might continue with JAG. It is a bit more time consuming as it requires getting writers and directors for all 3 billion episodes :P I think i was at season 3 of JAG last i edited my copy of it. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The convention is to use the DVD colours but, when they aren't available, a random pallet is used. Assigning the same pallet to related shows is just done for consistency where DVD colours aren't available and because, if the pallet worked for one show it will work for the other. As soon as DVD colours are available they should be used in place of the random pallet colours, as you've done. If you have the DVD colours for any show, whether it's NCIS, JAG or CSI, you should feel comfortable in using them over a random pallet. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the typo of the episode number. Do you want to change all 30ish seasons of CSI? I don't. Too much. Yes, i found it odd too but it seems the construct of the template doesn't call for proper closing of the un-italicising of part of the title in the infobox. It showed one ' in preview so i removed one of the two and then it was fine. They don't pay me enough to figure that one out right now ;) Time to watch Parenthood and go to sleep as it is almost 2am. Also, NCIS DC was on Tuesday in Canada this week so it likely will be available when the ratings are released. NCIS DC does better than glee but Global has decided that new eps of glee get priority on Tuesdays. Noone watches whichever show airs on Wednesday due to our cable/sat companies giving us local channels from across the country making it really easy to watch one from the US feed and then catch the other from Global a couple of hours later. Silly Global. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am guessing you take care of the Australian ratings for NCIS and know where to find the broadcast schedule. I mention this because there is a lot that doesn't make sense about the Australian ratings for season 8. Eps 167 & 168 (23 & 30 November) share a reference that says it was published on 22 November, 1 and 8 days before the respective episodes were broadcast. I am not sure who did what when to have things read that way but i think we both agree that ratings data being released before a programme is broadcast just isn't right. :P I can find the Australian ratings data but i don't know where to find the Australian broadcast schedule to put it all together. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't worry about Australian ratings because, overall, they mean nothing. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

a b- little stub - Floods_in_New_South_Wales hope - it might fill a gap that was showing - there still seem many bits to go in :( SatuSuro 14:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend. Probably best not to have passwords on wikipedia, it's not really fair to others. I see this is being discussed on the talk page so leave it to be discussed there. Hopefully the password will be removed eventually. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.218.39 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How would I get original research for the reference to Twitter? On the season 3 page, it is in the references and there is no research behind it. I would like to add it to the page. --DisneyFriends (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter is always an issue as it changes constantly. Which article are you referring to? --AussieLegend (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay - he was already blocked for a week, and now he's indef blocked. I don't see the need to waste time and Krebs cycles on this guy. We know he's not using the IP range blocked by MS in December (per the thread above), and he's probably still affected at least a little by the individual IP blocks I laid down, though those should begin to expire over the next few days. I have no idea what motivates these morons. Maybe they've run out of convenience stores to rob or they can't find a bridge on which to paint their graffiti. Ugh. Keep letting me know, and I'll keep blocking them. I'm tired of messing around here, and so are you. ;-) KrakatoaKatie 22:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for completely rangeblocking Verizon. I have very little hair left thanks to this one. Even though they're obviously backlogged, I've opened a case at Wikipedia:Abuse response/108.32.x.x --AussieLegend (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think this is made up? --Confession0791 ^talk 08:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know if I should have tagged it for AfD or CSD. --Confession0791 ^talk 09:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Aussie! I haven't had a chance to say hello of late, but Happy New Year!

When you get a free minute, would you take a look at the edit history (Special:Contributions/CovertAffairs22) for CovertAffairs22. Although he/she edits largely American shows, I note a certain similarity that has the duck quacking User:RoyalPains11. CA22 was just reverted a couple times for attempting to establish season articles for Covert Affairs far too early -- does that sound familiar? And then there's the user name. What do you think? Drmargi (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Earth to Aussie -- is it something I said, or would you prefer not to bother with this? It's starting to get interesting. See this edit [4] (which our pal Xeworlebi rather oddly reverted as vandalism), then this one: [5], then this one [6]. Read back a few edits on the history for The Glades, and you'll see the two editing at the same time again in late December. I'm pretty sure we've got our Royal Pain back again, but I'd appreciate your perspective. Drmargi (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a look and then got distracted.[7] I'll check it out later. Right now I'm going to bed as it's 5AM here. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sleep? At 5:00 am? You wuss. (Kidding...) Get some sleep, then take a peek when you get a chance. I thought it was a bit odd I hadn't heard from you. Glad all is OK. Drmargi (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to refresh your memory, have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RoyalPains11/Archive and then have a look at the edit history of List of Childrens Hospital episodes, which CovertAffairs22 and the IP have split.[8] The ducks are really noisy right now. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It was the two similar user names that first twigged this for me; I hopped right over to have a look at the sockpuppetry case as soon as a familiar pattern started to emerge, which is when I left the first message above. Then, of course, I re-messaged you when the 118.209 IP popped up. I'm not sure how far apart Geelong and Melbourne are geographically, but the IP's are so similar, as are the editing patterns, that it's got to be the same person. Now the dilemma: is this a "report for sockpuppetry case", or is this a "keep an eye on him/her" case? I'd be hard-pressed to make a sockpuppet argument, but I'm not as familiar with the nuances of the policy in application as you are. He/she has already split off an episode list article for Fairly Legal, which has a ten-episode first season, and doesn't premiere until tonight. The only difference in the two (RP and CA) I note is that CA and the newer IP seem to favor American shows v. Aussie shows, but that may be a timing issue. Drmargi (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there's enough for another SPI case. Geelong and Melbourne are less than 60km from each other but that doesn't mean anything. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

How do we proceed? I don't want to drop this in your lap, but I've never filed one before. I'm familiar with the basic procedure, but not as sure as to how to craft an argument. I'm headed for work shortly. Drmargi (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RoyalPains11 --AussieLegend (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I weighed in. I also dropped a note for Kevinbrogers, just FHI, since he's edited on some of the same articles and had the same frustrations. And now, we wait. Drmargi (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that took care of that. Now to keep an eye on the IP to see if there's anymore block evasion. Thanks for the help and the report! Drmargi (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Yesterday you added the {{refimproveBLP}} template to this article ([9]), which states that it is a biography of a living person requiring additional sources. While I don't doubt that it could use better sourcing, the first line of that article makes it quite clear it is not a biography of a living person: the subject died in 1987. Please check, when adding that template in future, that the subject really is alive; biographies of living people are a much more pressing concern for sourcing than biographies of dead people, and mistagging a dead person as living confuses the process. Thanks for reading. Robofish (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's still a biography of a person, and therefore it's still important to have correct citations. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that your name has "Aussie" in it, and based on my first perception, I think you are an Australian right? Here's the thing, I'm an undergraduate of Bachelor of English in IIUM and I'm doing a presentation based on Language Change in any parts of the world, so I have chosen Australia as my choice. My presentation requires me to do a thorough analysis of a dissertation about Phonological differences in Australia. With more than 100 pages, it is literally killing me in this examination week! Hu3!! Based on my readings, there are the types of accent in Australia right? Broad, general and cultivated. Here's where I need your help. In whole Australia, which part uses more broad accent, general or cultivated? And what's the differences between general and cultivated? And if you don't mind, you can add me at my facebook, sagyrius_90@yahoo.com.my if you have an account for a less formal conversation. Your cooperation is very much appreciated!! ^_^ SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 19:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but I've been distracted by other issues both on and off Wikipedia. I just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring this. I'll try to give it more attention in a few days. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind dear, I'll wait. I'm still working on differentiating the phonetical differences and regional differences. I have around one more week, give and take few days before my presentation. : ) SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 08:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 108.32.x.x. We wanted to let you know that the case has been opened and is currently under investigation. - Rich(MTCD)^{Talk Page} 22:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

11.^ a b Liu, Ed (2008-07-30). ""Phineas & Ferb: The Fast and the Phineas" is 2 Fast, Kinda Phunny". Toon Zone. http://news.toonzone.net/articles/25253/phineas-amp-ferb-the-fast-and-the-phineas-is-2-fast-kinda-phunny. Retrieved 2009-11-05. 69.228.90.50 (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Therefore my edit IS reliable and you CAN"T undo it. 69.228.90.50 (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion forums are not considered to be reliable sources. Toonzone.net has been discussed at WP:RSN as I have indicated twice on your talk page. Please note that vandalism is based on per editor contributions. Vandalism by the account you just created is counted with the edits by your IP, not separately. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have warned the IP twice on his talkpage that toonzone.net is not reliable, even linking to the relevant discussion at WP:RSN,[10][11]RSN discussion but the IP removes the warnings from his talkpage and continues to restore the content to List of Fish Hooks episodes. He created an account for the express purpose of vandalising my talkpage,[12] and has since vandalised it using IP.[13] --AussieLegend (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Drmargi has issue with my comment in the rfc to the point of repeatedly moving it out of the rfc to a separate section much to my objection. Their being there is a hindrance to the rfc according to the other people involved in the rfc and i object to them being relocated. Drmargi objects to my involvement at all. Solution: remove all of my involvement and let it go forward without my tainting it. Should you agree with something i had raised i have no objection to you re-raising the point yourself but striking my comments would actually serve to keep the frustrations and taint going by virtue of them still being there to be read. It does look odd that people are responding to me but they are free to retract their response and kill off the whole section as not needed. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 16:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the comments that I have made on your talk page.[14] --AussieLegend (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I read that one already. My point still stands - drmargi doesn't want my comments there and now neither do i. They have been called a hindrance to the success of the rfc. My involvement at all has been objected to. Please stop putting them back in. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 16:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Removing comments is not accepted practice. It's disruptive, especially after others have replied to them. --16:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point - drmargi wants them gone and i don't want to further disrupt the rfc by having my comments present in the rfc. It sounds completely stupid, i do not disagree, but apparently my very presence there is counter-productive according to drmargi. So backing out is the helpful act to take. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 17:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Drmargi wants nothing of the sort. Drmargi was simply attempting to separate the comments on the issue that the RfC is designed to solicit from the discussion of the merits of the RfC, which should be separated out by the heading I added, something I can't seem to communicate to deliriousandlost. Drmargi (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

For everything about this i wish you had noticed that i complied with the redact policy 11 minutes before you filed the formal complaint. We do disagree - that is hardly a secret. When we are not beating each other up we can make a very good team. I was removing my comments to avoid a disruption on one front while hoping it wouldn't create a disruption on another front. Clearly that didn't play out as hoped. Given how much objection i had to my comment on the rfc i saw no good to come from my involvement so the not-so-subtle hints to leave were agreeable to me. I looked at the query and the options and the potential results. Some call that a slippery slope and others an open can of worms. Given that the RFC pitted one BBC-owned site against another BBC-owned site and asked which is the more reliable one the fallout could be very messy. It is odd to consider but how is the BBC less reliable than itself? If one site they publish is unreliable then what about everything they publish? That is why i opposed the RFC - it was asking the wrong question.
In related matters, i believe i mentioned it in one of my removed comments, i emailed both websites' "contact us" begging for them to synchronise their data since they are both owned by the BBC. I give it a 0.04% chance anyone will read my emails but at least i tried. Without that happening there will remain a BBC-published website which will conflict with however the Top Gear episode list reads and thus the matter will never end.
And if you want further proof of drmargi and i being at fundamental disagreement you need look no further than the comment in the new section below this which caused me the first edit conflict wherein drmargi says i am "just there to stir up trouble". Drmargi and i both value the topgear.com site, which is one thing not many or maybe anyone else still involved in the matter cares for. Drmargi holds it above and i hold it equal to bbc.co.uk/topgear . Like everyone else i do want a resolution but i also see how conflicting primary data from the same publisher puts all primary, secondary, and tertiary references in a limbo where nothing can trump the others. If you get more involved in it i wish you luck as it is not a pretty situation and there is no easy solution that people or sources will agree to unless everyone eventually gives up and last person involved picks it :P delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You've seen the chaos on the Top Gear list article. It's already gotten me a (bad) block, and has been going in circles since mid-December. Just by way of advice, which way would you go to get it solved? The RfC was the right move by the editor who started it, but he's very inexperienced, doesn't understand consensus, reliable sources, or several other related practices, and is getting a touch possessive of the article. Then we have another user who's just there to stir up trouble. Walking away is certainly an option, but the mess remains, so I'd rather make at least one attempt at getting meaningful resolution. Clearly, it's time to bring in an outsider, but which way? I always value your opinion. Drmargi (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediation is probably the best option if you haven't tried that already. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. There's too much making it about others going on for another level of discussion (such as WP:RSN) to help much or to stick for long, I'm afeared. Anyway, thanks for the perspective, as always. Drmargi (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to be an ass about this, but if you're going to remove pitfeedback (which I support), then you need to either remove the information entirely or see if there is a replacement source. Unsourced information is worse than unreliably sourced information. In the case of Smallville, they all had more reliable sources before they were replaced with pitfeedback. I might be able to go back later and find those sources, but I really don't want sources removed with the information left behind because the numbers can easily be lost in the text and not sourced for a long time. I'm just saying, if you're going to do a cleanup effort, at least either remove everything completely or find a replacement for the article. Maybe even just tab the sentence(s) with unreliable so that there is at least an acknolwedgment in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been some discussion in the past about whether or not leaving the information in the article was better than it being removed entirely. Leaving it seemed to be the least troublesome. That said, I'm more than happy to remove the information entirely. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that would be the least troublesome because you're basically trading one issue for another, and given that we have a policy on verifying information and only a guideline on what a reliable source is I would say that you (not just you specifically, but anyone who is following that decision) are really trading for a worst situation. I'll go back over this week and find the original sources used for the numbers. I think Chaosmaster traded them because the PitFeedback has "updated" figures.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Pifeedback has now been removed for all articles although there are still 103 uses, primarily at User:Bignole/YSandbox and User:Bignole/ZSandbox. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

---

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for the occasional helping hand, listening ear or bit of sage advice. I appreciate what you do to help! Drmargi (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend,

This is a reply regarding the message you previously sent me;

"Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Primeval. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)"

The citation note I added does show that 4.57 million viewers tuned in to watch Primeval on 15/01/2011. BARB first shows that 4.15 million people tuned in to ITV1 to watch the episode, however this does not include the 415K that watch the programme that was simultaneously broadcast on its HD channel; ITV1 HD. A TV rating includes viewer numbers from the channels ITV1, ITV1 HD and ITV1+1 when regarding programmes shown on ITV1 or any other channel actually. Therefore 4.15 + 0.415= 4.565 (million). Therefore, the information should be corrected, from 4.15 to 4.57 in this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Primeval_episodes

Thank you Nuwantha G — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuwanthaG (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability applies here. If the source says 4.15 million, that's what the article has to reflect. Adding uncited numbers to cited numbers is original research, which is unacceptable. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to know why you had the removed the information that I had included, even when I had included a reference. Please could you respond here/talk page - 22:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to your message; do you mean that I can't just copy and paste the information, but I can rewrite it using the information given? talk page —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

Can you explain a bit more about your PROD of Alan Brady? It seems to make quite a few claims of notability. Have you been unable to verify the claims and therefore think it's a hoax or is there some other reason for the prod? The-Pope (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated when I prodded it,[15] it was an unreferenced single paragraph that didn't demonstrate the notability of its subject. It had been like that since its creation 5 years ago. It has now been expanded with three references so it seems borderline notable now. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There were at least three items that claimed/demonstrated notability: In 1929 he was the New South Wales Rugby Football League premiership's top try-scorer and the following year he played in the Magpies' premiership win. Eight years later he captain-coached Canterbury to victory in the Grand Final. I think even the most hardline BLP/notability people would agree that it is a bit more than borderline notability.The-Pope (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated statements don't demonstrate notability, they merely claim it. Demonstration requires attribution to reliable sources. All new BLPs require at least one reference in the article. That this was an old article merely means it can't be tagged with {{prod BLP}}. It doesn't mean the article doesn't require attribution. WP:ATHLETE is pretty lax when it comes to notability. For rugby league players all it requires, in Alan Brady's case, is that he appeared in at least one match of a fully professional domestic Rugby league competition. That alone doesn't guarantee that a player meets the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. If WP:ATHLETE's notability determination applied to, say, members of the defence force, every soldier, sailor and airman who participated in RIMPAC would be notable. So yes, it really is borderline notability, at least according to WP:GNG. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand the intent of WP:ATHLETE then. It assumes that if you meet a brightline requirement, then somewhere (maybe not googleable) there will be sufficient coverage to meet the GNG - but for now proof that it meets WP:ATHLETE is enough, as there is no WP:DEADLINE. Each project has had input into this notability test. The most contentious of these, the "1 game" requirements of most football/cricket codes make that assumption - that even a single game at a certain level will probably have gotten you coverage in the paper, season guide, club history etc. Could you say that about your soldiers or airmen? What about generals, majors, air marshals etc? You draw your line at a certain level too. If we didn't have a WP:ATHLETE then the googlehit counters at some AfDs would have a field day trying to delete most of the 19th century sportsmen, and a lot of the 20th century ones too (it's amazing how little of the 1990s is online in some areas - few online newspapers go back that far and no "old archives" have come forward to then.

WP:PROD clearly states that it is to be used ONLY for uncontroversial deletions. A player who claimed to be a leading try-scorer, premiership player and premiership coach is unlikely to be uncontroversially deleted, regardless of your opinion of the sport or the WP:ATHLETE guideline. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"probably have gotten you coverage" - That seems speculative doesn't it? WP:PROD doesn't state that it is to be used ONLY for uncontroversial deletions. It says that it "is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate". A 4.5 year old unreferenced article certainly falls into the category of articles that suggests that the subject is non-notable, regardless of the subject. WP:DEADLINE, which is just an essay and not a policy, doesn't justify the indefinite retention of an unreferenced article. There is a point where deletion has to be considered if attribution can not be demonstrated. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked 108.32.0.0/20 for 3 months now, and JamesBWatson reblocked 108.17.96.0/20 for 3 months a few days ago, which is why the vandal didn't hop there. Materialscientist (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Great work. Might get some peace now. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 108.32.x.x. We wanted to let you know that the case for the report you filed for 108.32.x.x has been closed. Thank you again for filing and alerting us of this IP's abusive behavior. - Rich(MTCD)^{Talk Page} 14:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

About your claim in edit summary on NCIS season 8 that cbspressexpress.com is not available outside of the US, it isn't true. I can access the site from Canada. Perhaps it is your ISP that is blocking the site. I can even watch video on cbspressexpress so I am not sure why you can't access a plain HTML file or the .doc file for a press release. Sometimes the press release on CBS is more detailed than the reprint on thefutoncritic.com. What I do have concern about is the many years of ratings info that are sourced to cbspressexpress. If you can't view the episodic press releases and so you removed them then you can't see the ratings press releases either. What is your intent regarding all of the ratings that are sourced to cbspressexpress on the previous seasons and other shows? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 14:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Canada can probably see it because it's just a defacto state of the US. ;) Feedback from other editors is that it can't be seen in several countries (they all thought it was their ISP until somebody else pointed it out!) and I've checked several ISPs myself (my work gives me that ability) so it's not just the ISP that I normally use. I'm really only concerned about the verifiability of future episodes and haven't really run across ratings info from cbs anyway. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lamb-leading-self-to-slaughter in the British colony down south ;) : Any and most every CBS-broadcast show from 2004ish through now have some ratings referenced to cbspressespress. I'm too lazy to go look but lets just say the first 4 seasons of NCIS DC are exclusively ratings-referenced to CBS press releases. Ghost Whisperer has it woven throughout the entire show. I can't stand Charlie Sheen so i have no idea about 2 & ½ idiots' ratings sourcing. I could name more but i think you get the idea. CBS covers a different but somewhat overlapping time period to ABC Medianet. Short of tracking down print copies of Variety or The Hollywood Reporter for all of those weeks and years there is no replacement. If they were replaced with references to print copies you still wouldn't be able to read them as i don't think your local library will stock 8 year old American Entertainment Industry quasi-trade periodicals; i know mine doesn't. Have you tried downloading the .doc - here is the .doc press release for the 1 February episode. If the domain itself isn't blocked then you should be able to get that file. It would be a great big pain but i could change everything over to the .doc link on dozen or so shows that instantly come to mind - you could help. I rarely see fake episodes added but i do encounter fake ratings at least once per week (and i don't mean unreferenced overnight being changed to referenced final ratings).
Not to be too picky but in episode 177 i am damn certain that CBS made a transposition error. Dennis Smith is a director and cinematographer but not a writer; George Schenck is a writer and producer but not a director; Frank Cardea is a writer and producer but not a director. If the CBS press release does not have an error this would be the first time that Dennis wrote an episode of a tv show and the first time that George or/and Frank directed an episode - too many firsts all in one episode for people well established in their careers for this to be not a typo in the press release. This would be a case of applying common sense and just swapping them in the episode list. CBS won't issue a correction and honestly if the episode is repeated they might carry the error through to the press release announcing the repeat. I use the site quite a bit and perpetuating errors is a common occurrence. I really should be a copy-editor for them :) delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't read the press release and despite all mention of each of these three people's careers indicating the press release has it backward you are insisting upon abiding by the press release. Why? Even the episode list itself has precedent for this being a typographical error by the person who wrote the press release. Dennis Smith directed 2 episodes of season 8 so far and the two other people have written 2 episodes of season 8 to date. Not one time in their careers have they received credit for what that press release says that they did. Somewhere there is a thing about using common sense. Insisting upon using what is blatantly incorrect info for the sake of it being from a reliable source is my greatest frustration with WP. I more often see it and read about it in talk pages but this time it is me and you and an incorrect reliable source for NCIS. Please explain why you feel that it is appropriate to retain this. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiabilty. Read the first sentence. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia:reliable sources can be wrong. Verifiability before just truth but what is verifiable must also be true. People lie. Governments intentionally deceive in the name of national security. People make tpyos. Common sense. wikipedia:editorial discretion = blank pending verified from episode itself. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting there's a government conspiracy to deliberately mislead CBS viewers about who writes and directs episodes? There's actually no requirement in WP:V that what is verifiable must be true. In fact, and I assume that you've read it now, the fist sentence is clear; what editors think is true is not as important as it being verifiable. Discounting a source because of personal analysis is original research and WP:OR is a policy, unlike Wikipedia:Editorial discretion, which is a mere essay. That said, Wikipedia:Editorial discretion doesn't really apply here. The source is undeniably reliable and there has been no consensus for this. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As to your statement that the source is undeniably reliable i do agree. I use this source quite regularly myself. However, as i think i really ought to write one day, wikipedia:reliable sources can be wrong. A reliable source which makes a typo in a publication is still a reliable source, but it is now a reliable source with a typo in a publication and that typo can create a minor or a grand error.
"Editorial discretion allows editors to evaluate sources, balance claims, and otherwise distill bodies of information into accurate, verifiable and comprehensive articles;". I evaluated the source and found it having a typographical error. To perpetuate the typographical error would be to have an inaccurate but verifiable article. Dennis Smith has directed 41 and written 0 (zero) of the 174-so-far-broadcast episodes of NCIS DC. Are you then challenging my assessment that it is a typographical error which claims he wrote the episode scheduled for a fortnight hence? If so then please show some reason to back up such a claim.
As to lack of consensus what have you? I object to it being wrong. You object to it being corrected. I object to leaving it. You object to blanking it pending info from the episode itself. I call it intentionally perpetuating a known inaccuracy and you label it original research to call it inaccurate. I say verifiable content must also be true and you say it doesn't need to be true so long as it is verifiable. You dismiss editorial discretion for being a mere guideline and i dismiss original research for being a mere policy. I should point out that removing the disputed content is not publishing it and so the policy on original research doesn't quite apply. Nevertheless the policy does say "In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments." The few dozen other press releases from CBS which call Dennis Smith a director would amount to "inconsistent passages" when put up against the release saying he is now a writer, which is a "passing comment". For 10 years (beginning in 1983) he was a camera operator. Then he was a cinematographer, and his first directing gig was the series finale of Picket Fences in 1996 (a really good episode by the way). I am i guess challenging the source used to claim Dennis Smith is now a writer. So far one person has flipped it and you reverted that (which is how i found out you were aware of it) so that would put it at 2 for it being wrong and 1 for it staying as the press release has it. Consensus is against keeping it as the press release has it. Should we take this to the article instead of your talk page since there are now more than just us two?
And no, i am not saying there is a government conspiracy to mislead CBS viewers but that was amusing to read. Just a few random reasons why things are not always correct. I once wrote a little ditty that was published in the Belfast Telegraph but it would be wrong to call me an Irish author. ( I swear i trimmed this down a lot before saving it. ) delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 11:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"I evaluated the source and found it having a typographical error." - Where is your source proving it's a typo? The answer is that there isn't one. That's your opinion, which is original research.

"that would put it at 2 for it being wrong and 1 for it staying as the press release has it. Consensus is against keeping it as the press release has it." WP:CONSENSUS is not voting. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Where is your source proving it's a typo? The answer is that there isn't one. That's your opinion, which is original research." The totality of his life's work. The CBS press releases which show he has always worked on the visual and never on the written part of a tv show. That is "evaluate sources, balance claims, and otherwise distill bodies of information into accurate, verifiable and comprehensive articles". There is no claim from another party that doesn't trace back to that press release which says he suddenly became a screenwriter and that two screenwriters suddenly became directors. Even the article itself says he is a director of two of the so-far broadcast episodes of the season. Does it say he wrote any episode? No. That is a great other stuff exists argument given that the other stuff which exists is found in the same article that is at dispute. :P I could say that tv.com doesn't even have the error that wikipeia does. I think i shall. At least tv.com got this right! While i am at it let mention that imdb still has not this episode included and tvrage also has it correct. If you want to make the arguement that they are unreliable user submitted content sites then i would remind you that the easiest site for users to submit content to is wikipedia. At your insistence wikipedia is the only one that has the wrong info because you need to reject common sense and a pile of circumstantial evidence to stand by a press release you can't even read. You are literally taking my word for it that thefutoncritc.com isn't where the error lies. How is that for original research on your part? You trust me to say it is the same at cbspressexpress.com as you can see at thefutoncritic.com but you don't trust me to say that the info is backward. If i had made the claim that thefutoncritic.com is where the error lies and that cbspressexpress.com has it correct you couldn't have verified that. I could have exploited your technological restriction but i decided to go with honesty. I didn't think that would get such opposition. There is also http://www.ncisfanwiki.com/page/8.15+Defiance which while being user submitted content is also the most comprehensive source of information on the show. You probably are aware that tv listings sites and tvguide.com won't go more than 2 un-broadcast episodes worth of content onto their sites.
""that would put it at 2 for it being wrong and 1 for it staying as the press release has it. Consensus is against keeping it as the press release has it." WP:CONSENSUS is not voting." Don't fool yourself; it really is. It is a form of tossing out the votes you decide don't matter. Which is oddly enough a form of original research which is not applied directly to articles. Still, however you want to reconcile it not one person is so far supporting your position and some person agrees with me.
You have second-hand knowledge of a source claiming three guys did things so out of the norm for each of them and rather than look into it yourself you sit back and say 'no you prove it wrong'. There is no logical reason to believe the press release. This does remind me of the NCIS LA episode from season 1 where the press release had the wrong director listed. You didn't like that either. I believe you requested a {{cite episode}} be used to show the press release to be wrong. Again i now realise and must ask, how do you know the press release for that NCIS LA episode at thefutoncritic.com was correct? You have access to republished press releases while i read the originals and the reprints. For all of your arguments i can not wrap my mind around your steadfast adherence to a press release you can't even verify is real so that you know you aren't making a foolish arguement.
* Considering thefutoncritic.com is not actually considered either notable or a reliable source for its own news why do you trust the press releases they claim to republish?
* Do you think i would bring this up if i thought the press release to be correct just to challenge you on something i know you consider important? I could be watching the season finale of Lie to me* right now but accuracy in an episode list is more important. What would be original research is if i were to call Mark Horowitz, record the conversation in which i ask him who directed the episode, and then put it on hotfile for you to download. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You say original research. I say editorial discretion. You say reliable source. I say vandalism. This is going nowhere between us so i put a summary on the season article and ask for more input because the two of us are at an irrevocable stalemate. If you want to put in any comment now-ish would be the ideal time to do so before anyone else reads it. Talk:NCIS_(season_8)#Episode 175 delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend, I undid your edit on Red Forman because it had left a damaged, incomplete first sentence. Which you should have previewed to check and corrected yourself, since it was the first thing that any Wikipedia reader (like me) coming to that page would see. I apologize for not leaving a better edit summary than "fix mess", I should have said "fix damaged incomplete sentence". Anyway, not a big deal -- and by the way, I don't really care whether the birthdate is included or not. But it's an article about a fictional character with a fictional birthdate, so info like birthdates doesn't need to be as rigorously sourced as info in a biography of a real person, and there is no harm in including such info if it is correct within the universe of that TV show. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm. Well, first of all, I have no problem with your edit, but I have a slight difference of opinion as to what constitutes "some time ago". The version you restored had just been created by myself less than three hours earlier. I only then later changed it to the version that you reverted at the suggestion of another editor, who felt it would be less confusing to other editors. So everything's fine--looks like we're all on the same page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I was actually referring to Batavia, Dutch East Indies, which was redirected two years ago.[16] --AussieLegend (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Case is that they said Friday, February 4th, 2011 at 8:30 pm that The Dark Side of the Fish would premiere, according to the commercial. Then it played Big Fish, so it's proof it's a mistake. If Big Fish is Episode 18 just because it aired before The Dark Side of the Fish, then how is The Tale of Sir Oscar Fish episode 13 if Hooray for Hamsterwood is episode 14 when it aired before Sir Oscar Fish episode? So then, Big Fish is episode 19. Clamshot (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was interested in your reversion of an editor who changed ANZAC to Anzac . The ANZAC Cove article has Anzac used through out the article (other than the name). It seems there are many inconsistencies regarding the use of this acronym. Was there a consensus reached as to which is correct and should the other articles reflect this? Cheers. Ozdaren (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There were a couple of rather lengthy discussions that resulted in consensus regarding how and when to capitalise. One is at Talk:Anzac Day#ANZAC acronym and capitalisation but I can't locate the other. There's also a move proposal at Talk:ANZAC#Requested move where moving to the lowercase spelling was rejected. Despite ANZAC Cove using the lowercase spelling throughout the article, the article title still uses uppercase so the editor's spelling change was inappropriate. He tried the same change last year, as well as some mass changesof spelling against consensus. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I just blocked 108.32.102.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours as clearly being another instance of the Verizon Vandal. Since you've got an apparent log going at User:AussieLegend/Project 04#The Verizon vandal, I added a new line to it. I hope it's okay that I did that; please let me know if you'd prefer I didn't if I come across any more instances (and sadly, I expect I will at some point in the future). —C.Fred (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm absolutely convinced you'll keep coming across more instances. The vandal's IP range is 108.32.0.0/12 but there are constructive posts being made from within the pool so only 108.32.0.0/20 was blocked, leaving plenty of addresses for it to use. You adding entries to the log means that I don't have to so please, feel free to do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on NCIS [[17]] -- it's helpful if you use preview to finalize your comments before posting. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I do preview. What's the problem you are trying to point out? --AussieLegend (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed at WQA, so it seemed continuing the discussion here seems redundant. Gerardw (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, this particular post wasn't discussed there. I don't see what the issue with that post was. Please explain. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the quote in the Sheldon Cooper article "the singular location in space around which revolves my entire universe"^{[emphasis added]}? I want to make sure that (a) I got it formatted right and (b) Sheldon didn't say anything more complicated than my there. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the exact quote. It happens at about 20:07 into the episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You could've asked me (the starter of the page) if I had any references to support the episodes (which I added but whoever edited the page after me deleted them) was going to add them today but you deleted the page before I could add them. You could see I started the page but didn't think to ask if there was a reference so you took it into your own hands. I can't make a new page to add them because it's protected for some reason. Next time could you ask before you delete the page? - Alec2011 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete the page. I just asked for it to be moved from Phineas and Ferb (Season 3) to Phineas and Ferb (season 3) to fix the capitalisation error in the article name. As you should be able to see from the move log, it was deleted by somebody else. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just looked at the List of Episode Page where you stated "Deleted Season 3 page" so that's why, I'm sorry. - Alec2011 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was unaware of this. I will refrain from using Pifeedback to reference any information I later add on any Wikipedia article. Thanks for the notification. Codywarren08 (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just left a message for Deliriousandlost [18] requesting she stop using me as an example to prevail during a dispute. I don't plan to enter the discussion, but will file an ANI report if she keeps it up. Just a heads up, because we know this won't go over well.

Also, it might behoove you and other editors in the discussion I've referenced to review the American standards for role definition as used by SAG and other professional organizations. You've all muddled terms like main cast (which is a largely a website term)/series regular (comparable industry term), recurring role, extra, etc. with terms that describe billing, such as guest starring, special guest star, etc. Casting calls will occasionally include these terms not to describe the role, its size or significance, but to indicate where the show plans to bill the role: as a rule of thumb, guest star is at the episode opening and co-star at series end, for example. Billing is ultimately determined contractually, and has as much to do with the actor as the role. For example, a notable actor may play a small role on a recurring basis, but be billed as special guest star (see Diahann Carroll in White Collar) or be a major player in one or more episodes (see Goran Visnjic or Tom Skerritt's recent appearances in Leverage) and carry the same billing. Terms like starring, guest star, special guest star, special appearance by, even the use of 'and', along with position in credit order, are negotiated in the US and often hotly contested. But they tell us nothing relative to the actor's status in the cast, even with series regulars on occasion. I'm assuming you know at least some of this, but thought a bit of clarification might be helpful. Drmargi (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a clue where to find "American standards for role definition as used by SAG", and I'm sure the others don't care. I don't see what the big issue is anyway. As I see it, it's just another excuse for Deliriousandlost to write volume after volume after volume of waffle. I've deliberately ignored irrelevant mentions of you because I know that a single word in response would result in another 700 words of, to put it bluntly, crap. I've pretty much given up reading her posts anyway, 8,000 words on why she couldn't write "<s></s> <s></s> <s></s>" did it for me and the drivel at Talk:NCIS is well beyond a joke. I usually reply based on her edit summaries, if I can understand them. Rest assured, if she persists and you find the need to take this to ANI, I will have something to add. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

She reverted the notice on her talk page, sans comment. Ah, well. I expect to have to go ANI with her in time. Whether it's this, or the next issue used to grind her ax remains to be seen. (The SAG stuff is online, but it's really more to help you negotiate the twaddle, if need be. ) Drmargi (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Grateful for your thoughts. –Moondyne 15:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I updated the EDUC-8 picture. The Computer History Museum just finished a $19 million expansion and the EDUC-8 has a prominent spot. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff. I miss mine. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that all of the information on that page has a source only the contents of the episodes as quoted by the people in the page. The character states his date of birth in an episode which I referenced as source. It could only be verified if one watches the episode in question. I cannot reference a written source nor could anybody else in regards to anything on the page. So - it is unclear to me why it's exactly my addition which is considered inappropriate for the page. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.3.73 (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several reasons why what you posted was inappropriate. Firstly, it's uncited. The episode only identifies the actual date, not the year. Stating that it's one year or another without a source to back you up is original research. And, of course, the birth year couldn't have been 1961. Since the episode was set in 1979, a 1961 birth year would mean that he turned 18 that year and it was stated in the episode that he was 19. The other thing wrong was your addition of "| date of birth = 4 Aug 1960 or 1961" to the infobox. There is no " |date of birth=" field in {{Infobox character}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't put numbers on the Primeval Webisodes as a joke. I put them there so as labels so they could be cross referenced. The number is arbitrary. I used 23.1 as it's after 23 and before 24, which is where they fit. Now you've broken all the links I made to them because of some numerological idea you have. How about you discuss something like this before messing it up? And yes, I see you have "fixed" some links. Not all. You can find the rest and fix them; or if not we can just revert to the way THAT WORKED before you leapt in. Barsoomian (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"All the links" is somewhat of an exaggeration. The sum total was 3 in the creatures article, which you could have fixed in less time than it took to write the above. Using "23.n" as the episode numbering was not appropriate as it gives the impression that these were related to episode 23, which isn't the case. Had you picked a less ambiguous method of numbering, the fix wouldn't have been necessary. You might note that I didn't whine about it on your talk page. I just changed it. I really don't see why you see the need to be so confrontational. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you see something wrong just fix it without the drama. One positive thing you could do, since you are obviously so interested in Primeval, is to go through the creatures article and make it consistent. I did a preliminary cleanup but there are still issues, especially with the infobox and it's getting a bit top-heavy on the non-free images again. That's likely to bring more attention than this and this if it's not addressed soon. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You broke the links, putting in your own idiosyncratic numbering, without any discussion, snarking at me in your edit comments, and continuing to lecture me above. Where is the "collaborative effort" in that? And you criticise me for not tidying up the mess you made? There isn't any "ambiguity" in the numbering I chose. It's perfectly clear that 23.1 comes after 23. Who knows where "w1" goes"? I do not accept your statement that the decimal numbering is "inappropriate"; just to be clear. (List of Jericho episodes has an episode 11.5, for instance, which no one complained of getting a "wrong impression" that it was related to episode 11. Maybe you should go there and "fix" that. ) But like other issues, that I do not choose to take it to the mat does NOT mean that you have proven your point; only that continuing the argument is not worth the time. You can have your w1, now that you've wasted both out times to sort it out. As for the images, I don't care one way or another. Some people like to upload them. Other people like to delete them. They can sort it out between themselves. Barsoomian (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It was 3 links that I missed, get over it. You added your own confusing numbering without discussion so I really don't see what your problem is, unless you're asserting ownership of the page. Where exactly was the "snarking"? The system you chose is ambiguous, because 23.1, 23.2 etc seem to have something to do with 23, and therefore season 3, when they're related to season 4 and its episodes. The Jericho example isn't a good one becasue ep11.5 is an actual episode, not a webisode, that aired between episodes 11 and 12 and is directly related to episode 11 and the rest of the first part of the season. Looking at actual webisodes, List of Stargate Universe episodes uses a completely different method of numbering its webisodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Jericho: 11.5 was a recap episode after a 3-month break. Like the Primeval webisodes, it was meant to introduce the following episodes. There was no implication that it was "son of episode 11"; it was just "after episode 11". Meanwhile, the next group of Primeval webisodes will intro Series 5. Under your logic, they will be w6, w7 ... which really will look like they follow w5 rather than 4.7. But you've got a few months to rationalise that. You have some idea that you have to segregate webisodes from TV episodes; that is your prejudice and is just going to cause confusion when the program makers, as in Primeval, are not following your rules. Barsoomian (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

When 11.5 aired is irrelevant. It was still an actual episode that aired in the middle of a season. The Primeval webisodes were not in season 3 or 4, they were "broadcast" in a different medium between seasons. You can't compare them to Jericho. The only valid point you've raised is that Jericho 11.5 isn't the "son of episode 11". Will there be a "next group of Primeval webisodes"? Have you seen anything that confirms there will be or are you just assuming? If there are and the the numbering needs fixing, we can do that then. It's not a big deal. For now there is no confusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your obsession with segregating the webisodes into a separate sequence is the source of the "confusion". There was none with my numbering. You weren't "confused" were you? And don't chide me about crystal balling on a talk page, I'm trying to anticipate problems now when it's simple to fix. Just reverting your ill-considered renumbering would do it now. Barsoomian (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You're making no sense. The webisodes were in a separate sequence before the numbering started. Confusing is giving them an episode 23 number when they're not part of episode 23 or season 3. Anticipating problems is fine but the problems you're anticipating are not actually a problem because the numbering can be changed at any times. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• copied to Talk:List of Primeval episodes and continued there, as more appropriate. Barsoomian (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am so sorry about messing up the episodes page for Shake IT Up. I didn't mean to. I jus felt it needed the eppsode Charlie It Up, since it was a planned crossover with Good Luck Charlie. Please don't block me from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSpector (talk • contribs) 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to unblock asianandy so he can continue to help the website by adding information.You yourself have made mistake and you didn't get blocked from editing it so you should unblock him.By the way for the List of awards and nominations received by Miley Cyrus page should have Hannah Montana's nomination because she is Hannah Montana ans is part of the cast so she is credited for the award and from any other movies like awards and nominations from Bolt and other movies she has done.If you don't, you will be blocked from editing the pages you have messed up on.So unblock him and put all the awards and nominations she has from the tv show and movies she done on the page.She is credited for it because she work on the movie.She is credited for everything she has done with the Hannah Montana franchise, she is hannah.So put every award from the show and movies she done on the page or have asianandy do it.Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.3.73 (talk) 08:32, 01 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (User talk:94.208.3.73) • contribs)

You should note that Asianandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) modified his edits to appear as an IP address. I'm tempted to block just on the basis that there can't be a good motive behind this.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to assume good faith based on this. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the title reference be evident for Snakes on a Boat? It is styled the same as Snakes on a Plane and one of the lines in the episode is almost exactly like the movie. --DisneyFriends (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Other episodes have title references but there are no links to them.

I'm afraid assumptions are insufficient as references. You still need a reliable source confirming it. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that anyone could take a certain photograph, and therefore they should all be in the common domain. Good photography is difficult at best, and therefore photographers should be rewarded for their work.Pinguinus (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree but I think you are wrong. Nevertheless, thank you for taking the time to read my userpage. It's nice to know that I didn't write all that stuff for nothing. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think I am wrong?Pinguinus (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree it would make life for us a lot simpler (and lawyers a lot less rich) if copyright law didn't exist, I have to agree with Pinguinus. Sure, in theory anyone can take a photo, but not everyone does, especially when that photo requires effort to obtain, such as travelling to remote locations or staying up all night for the perfect sunrise. If a photo is taken by a pro, it's because he/she has made the effort to do so, and has likely incurred some expense, whether in hard cash or opportunity cost. If you want to upload your own pics for free, then fine, but not everyone is as generous as you, and nor should they be forced to be. Jake fuersturm (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.

Keep up the great work!

A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 09:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You sent me a link to MOS:TV. According to the rule of "once credited as main cast - always remains listed in main cast", then shouldn't Caitlin Todd and Jenny Shepard also be included in the Main cast section of the List of NCIS characters article? Instead, they are listed as Deceased characters (which is true, but I can't find an exemption in MOS:TV for this breach of the earlier rule). If it is preferable to move desceased main characters to the deceased section, then shouldn't someone also create a separate Desceased characters section in List of NCIS: Los Angeles characters for Dominic Vail? Or can we just do what we feel like since MOS:TV is silent on the issue of deceased characters? Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS:TV also says that fiction is always treated in the present, so splitting cast lists into current and former is inappropriate. This would also mean that "deceased" is also inappropriate since, if we treat episodes in the present, there are many where those characters are not deceased. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, if that's the case, then shouldn't the Deceased characters section of the aforementioned article be removed, and the listings re-distributed? Jake fuersturm (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What does a talkback mean? --DisneyFriends (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback is used as a way of letting editors know that there are messages for them, or a conversation that their input intyo would be welcome. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In the course of commencing a sock puppet investigation against Clarify255, who added unnecessary links to The Penguins of Madagascar: Operation: DVD Premiere, I noticed a link to your "Verizon vandal" project page section in the block report of Clarify29. Since you've apparently kept thorough records of this vandal, you may be interested in commenting on the investigation I initiated. I guess you can also add Clarify255 to the March 2011 list of offending usernames. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend!

Thanks for your good humor with the (near surreal) discussion of categorizing Klingons. I noted another apology for being irritated yesterday, on my user page, after correcting inappropriate language on the template talk page. I played some Midnight Oil in your honor. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Convince me, and I'll block. I examined a handful of edits, and couldn't be as sure as you.—Kww(talk) 15:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that another admin was convinced and has already blocked her. As I indicated in the AIV report, the traits exhibited by the editor are the same as the vandal that is well documented at User:AussieLegend/Project 04#The Verizon vandal. I've been putting up with this bozo for 3 months now so it's fairly easy to identify the sneakier vandalism as I've seen it all 639 times before. Fortunately I haven't been wrong yet. All the accounts that I've picked up so far, up to 18 March when the last SPI case was closed, were confirmed by CheckUser. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't seen the AIV report, just your reversions.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you were involved in discussion on a previous AfD. Anything you'd like to add? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You said "articles should generally only have one infobox". Did you make this rule up yourself or is there a wikipedia policy? You also said i left blank copies of {{Infobox model}} to articles, even though i havent done that. Pass a Method talk 08:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is, adding infoboxes with only hair and eyecolour is pointless. You've also been adding {{Infobox model}} to articles where the infobox is not appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

An infobox giving eye/hair colour for models; how is that "pointless"? I specifically added them only for models, not exclusively actresses, nor singers etc. Pass a Method talk 10:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Eye and hair colour is relatively trivial information, which is why they're not included in {{Infobox person}}. Adding an entire infobox just to identify these two aspects only serves to add unnecessary clutter to articles. These infoboxes are known as disinfoboxes. As for "generally only having one infobox" have a look around Wikipedia. Sometimes articles have nested infoboxes but completely separate infoboxes for the same subject is unconventional at best. We generally select one infobox that most closely fits the person. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. There are infoboxes including eye and hair colour. Look at Keeley Hazell for example. Pass a Method talk 12:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a compromise where you add this infobox-style to the relevant articles. Pass a Method talk 12:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That infobox is for nude models/performers. Do not add that to biographies of people who aren't. Nymf _hideliho! 12:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There may be infoboxes that include eye and hair colour but, as is clear from what I wrote, I was talking about {{Infobox person}}, which is the main infobox used for biographical articles. As Nymf has pointed out, the infobox you're proposing is for nude models, performers and porn stars. It's inappropriate for most biographical articles. If you think eye and hair colour should be included, make the suggestion at Template talk:Infobox person. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't give me any hope that we can continue with a reasonable discussion if you're gong to make silly posts like this, which was followed, somewhat ironically, by this. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In case you're iterested, i just found an alternative infobox; {{infobox model}}. Also see result at Keeley Hazell - Pass a Method talk 08:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't just find that, you were adding it to articles yesterday.[19][20][21] It's not an alternative to {{Infobox person}} unless it's used in articles where the subject is primarily a model. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop changing the coloring in the character infoboxes! It is not distracting, not poor, not nothing! I can read it just fine. So stop being a pain and get over it!96.235.151.232 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The colours being used, especially the reds and purples, make it extremely difficult for visually impaired readers to read text in the bar. The red used in Fez is too bright and distracting for readers who aren't visually impaired and black text on dark purple is extremely difficult to read for anyone. There's simply no need for colouring. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the error checking.

I'm out of ideas until, hopefully, tomorrow, when someone will be sending me some answers to various questions, perhaps. If you've got any content feel free to add it.

I'm hoping to get it to a DYK state, and I'll put forward your name with the nomination. -danjel (talk to me) 12:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, I was kind of new at it, took it to my limits of memory and what references I could find for it. What would be the implications of putting the schools crest up? They have a good sized version I have found on: http://maitland-high-school-der-wiki.wikispaces.com/ - Would it come under a copyrighted logo in common domain? --Kindros (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have uploaded the file as File:Maitland High School logo.png with appropriate licensing and fair use rationale and added it to the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the complete history of what's going on at List of House episodes, but it's probably a good time to move to step three of WP:BRD and just discuss the matter on the talk page right now, especially if you're hitting up against the three-revert rule, since it sounds like it isn't a simple vandalism situation. —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I already suggested discussing it on the IP's talk page. He started a discussion while I was doing so but seems intent on deleting cited content and has now breached 3RR anyway. I've also notified other recent contributors to the article for their input. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello AussieLegend! I recently noticed that you de-capitalized "Fireworks" in the above name and wonder if that's actually correct. Seeing as "Fireworks" is actually part of the name, I would think it should stay capitalized but you said it wasn't a propper name. The 9pm Fireworks and Midnight Fireworks are indeed official names on the Sydney.com website and so collectively the whole event is known as the "Sydney New Year's Eve Fireworks". Am I missing something?

The "Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race" for example isn't shown as "Sydney to Hobart yacht race" so why should "fireworks" be de-capitalized? Let me know what you think. AnimatedZebra (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If we were to believe sydney.com the event is called "Summer Festival New Years Eve Fireworks", or maybe even "Summer Festival New Years Eve Fireworks - Exhibitions and Shows, Festivals and Celebrations, Performances".[22] The website uses standard title case while Wikipedia does not. WP:TITLEFORMAT says to use lower case except for proper names. Sydney should be capitalised, New Year's Eve is all capitals but we don't have definite confirmation that "Sydney New Year's Eve Fireworks" is a proper name and fireworks is generally not capitalised so we have to defer to Wikipedia naming conventions. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I see AussieLegend. Ok, I'll go and see if I can get the official name from the website/organizers/whomever. I'll report back here on my findings and go from there... *scurries away... AnimatedZebra (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Some may point out WP:COMMONNAME in regards to the New Years Eve fireworks in Sydney. Bidgee (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)