This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
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)
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! :-) Krakatoa Katie 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)).
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)
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)
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)
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 :( Satu Suro 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)
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. ;-) Krakatoa Katie 22:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you think this is made up? -- Confession0791 talk 08:57, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|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)
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)
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 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 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. My76 Strat 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)
What does a talkback mean? -- DisneyFriends ( talk) 18:45, 14 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
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)
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! :-) Krakatoa Katie 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)).
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)
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)
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)
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 :( Satu Suro 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)
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. ;-) Krakatoa Katie 22:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you think this is made up? -- Confession0791 talk 08:57, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|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)
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)
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 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 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. My76 Strat 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)
What does a talkback mean? -- DisneyFriends ( talk) 18:45, 14 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)