Hi, Spooks (series 7) has been a good topic candidate for a while and I recently came across a post saying it's going to need more comments because so far there has only been two supports and one oppose. So I was hoping since you and I cross paths every now and then, that you wouldn't mind posting your comment on the matter. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you for linking to WP:NOTBROKEN a second time. However, since I clearly linked to it in my own edit-summary you should have been aware that I read it. What that edit-summary said was as follows: WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't say, "Revert anybody correcting redirects." And so it doesn't. What WP:NOTBROKEN means is, don't go about doing it specially. It doesn't tell you to revert people who do it: what is the point of that? ╟─ Treasury Tag► assemblyman─╢ 14:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not a common issue but your pushing forward the ENGLISH ONLY has resulted in keeping hidden the fact that Body of Proof has 13 episodes in its first season, and that said season has been seen in a variety of languages all over the planet. But in English only 9 are being shown (Australia and the UK who knows as of writing this, they could show 13 over the next few months). Care to weigh in on this mess your change in policy creates, effectively lying to English readers and keeping hidden the existence of 4 episodes of a show because they have only been broadcast in Russian, French, Italian, Spanish, and who-knows-what-other-languages. Perhaps revert the change in policy. :nodshead:
As to Smallville, it is futile to disagree with Bignole. Much like it is futile for me to disagree with you. But i still do. Perhaps even worse to disagree with him about Smallville because he effectively has final say on anything and everything Smallville related. In one comment last night he lied on 6 different matters as he told me all the ways in which i was in error. Until last night i didn't know July comes before May but according to Bignole it does. I had a laugh at that one. The complete series DVD release of Smallville was announced in late April and it says 218 + Superboy pilot from 1961 and Bignole unilaterally dismisses that declaration from Warner Bros. about the episode count. But he won't accept that in Canada the première was 2 hours and that the DVD release is not a re-edited special made just for that DVD release but rather is the standard debut for the show, which the USA was not privy to. The article itself actually makes that claim without reference and why? He believes it and he damn well knows there is no reference for it. What reference is given for the première DVD doesn't come close to making the claim he is implying is found in the reference used to cite the existence of the DVD release. For the way he meticulously references things there is no other viable explanation. That would be one reason why i usually do nothing more than read the Smallville articles. Damn that day i found the episode list had become skip-numbered and i had the courtesy to read the talk pages instead of unilaterally fixing it. :bang head on desk now:
delirious &
lost ☯
~hugs~
15:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I just chose that color for all of Fringe's quote boxes, so do you have a better suggestion? Perhaps another shade of blue? (I dislike the default grey color). After all, other series' articles have their own colors (like Glee and Parks and Recreation). Ruby2010 comment! 20:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
#bfdfff
, it's a lighter blue.
Xeworlebi (
talk)
20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Per your comments at Nathan Fillion, no, you're not required to use IPA, it's just the standard. There are other options, spelled out at WP:PRON, but it would be nice if you tagged them with {{ needs IPA}} so that it can be completed quickly. — kwami ( talk) 05:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I tidied up dead links (almost all from RS) as well as cites without titles (eg.Killer Queen: A Tribute to Queen). MusoForde ( talk) 15:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC).
{{
Dead link}}
not removed.
Xeworlebi (
talk)
14:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)I have revered your change to Endgame which was done per your change to the infobox doc because the change you put into the infobox doc is explicitly non-Canadian and you are applying it to a Canadian show. Canadian shows don't have unaired episodes if the production company and the broadcaster ever want to work again / retain their broadcast license. The way the infobox doc was changed by yourself reflects the American (and a few other countries') practice of discarding shows that are not performing to satisfactory levels which result in episodes not being broadcast. Episodes also have to be shown within a specific time. That is partly why Flashpoint returned to CTV in January while CBS held it back another 4 months. I could give you a pile of links to all of this stuff but i get the impression you wouldn't want to read it (most people don't) so unless you ask for it. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 10:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
For future reference, what is the difference between "right" and "upright" for images? -- Boycool ( talk) 20:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I want to remove the nonsense on the List of Falling Skies episodes Talk page. It's silly. Just people arguing and nothing there is constructive.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding
your revert, kindly show me where exactly in the documentation of the
Template:Infobox television season it says that the num_episodes fields must list (and only list) the number of aired episodes (which it doesn't, and I looked before it made that edit), or where community consensus is suggesting anything like it (nothing on the template talk page, and I looked before I made that edit), and what fault you found in my explanatory edit summary of my edit to just revert it like that.
Amalthea
10:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I note that the documentation of {{
Infobox television}} asks to only list aired episodes, I presume you were referring to that. That documentation adds something about number of produced episodes in case of a canceled series, so it apparently does not demand to ever only list the number or released episodes (which, in the case of Game of Thrones, is actually 7, since one additional episode was made available to subscribers on various Internet portals).
Currently the infobox reads "No. of episodes: 6", which at the very least is misleading, as evident by previous changes in this article and in those of most other current TV series. I see no reason against extending the information to list both released and produced episodes, as explained in my edit summary, as long as reliable sources can back it up.
Amalthea
11:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In absence of a reply I will now restore the change. Amalthea 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are marking the South Park episode Cripple Fight with a notability tag. It seeems to be a well established consensus that every South Park episode is inherently notable and gets its own article. Not sure why this episode should be treated any differently. In any event, if this article was to be put to AfD, I seriously doubt it would ultimately be deleted, so the notability tag seems pointless. Anyhow, just my observation, I won't push this further. Safiel ( talk) 21:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
As someone who has a great deal of experience on Wikipedia, would you mind looking over and possibly rating a couple new articles I've created? I want to make sure I didn't miss anything, and have a third party read over and fix anything I may have done wrong. The articles can be found at Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe and " Pilot (White Collar)". Thanks! Kevinbrogers ( talk) 04:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you assist me in developing my new article on Covert Affairs season 1, The draft is right here. maucho eagle ( c) 20:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Xeworlebi, for your helpful copyediting to the article Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 09:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You keep removing my contributions to the Falling Skies episode table. First off, the table is dreadful. It would look better if it looked like List of The Walking Dead episodes. Second, I am trying to fix it up. If you want to fix it up, great. So go ahead then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyDarmodyRules ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
|EpisodeNumber2=
column now. What is there to "fix up"? At this point nothing. Also, no not delete comments from talk pages.
Xeworlebi (
talk)
12:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Hello! I am writing about the episode descriptions that you reverted earlier today [1]. I was under the impression that the content at tv.com is free to use (because it's freely editable by users). I just wanted to say that I am relatively new to wikipedia and wasn't aware that my edits would constitute copyright violations. Apologies for that. -- Tuniof ( talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it common practice to have full season ranking in a table format? That way full season information is easier to find, and prose is used for individual milestone episodes. Jayy008 ( talk) 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
When will Falling Skies (season 1) be able to re-edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you have been adding {{
notability}}
tags to a large number of articles Buffy and Angel articles, without providing any rationale as far as I can tell. There has been a longstanding consensus that individual episodes of these shows have their own articles. If you believe that should change, I recommend you start a centralized discussion at one of the parent article's talk pages, rather than randomly drive-by tagging a large number of articles. Thank you,
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
15:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
notability}}
as is the appropriate way to do for those articles.
Xeworlebi (
talk)
17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)I have requested editing dispute assistance, as your random mass "notability" tagging seems impossible to resolve. You have not once described what you would consider acceptable noteworthiness (or whatever the word should be), nor have you explained how you are suddenly the gatekeeper for notability on the many episode pages you've tagged. You haven't shown us an example by, say, editing one of the pages yourself to make it notable by your standards so we can follow suit and then remove the tags without further trouble. Nor have you accepted the contention that if all the page consists of is plot, there is no need to demand references, as the episode is its own reference, even though that is acceptable WP policy. Such a page should have a "plot only" tag, but it's absurd to demand references for a page that has, as yet, nothing to reference. You can find my request here: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests-- TEHodson 10:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
My solution is to just revert him, as I just did at Sexual Harassment Panda. - Denimadept ( talk) 15:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I've made a small modification to the first sentence, see [2]. I did so based on looking at lots of featured lists. I hope it'll be OK, but ff you're unhappy about it, could we please discuss it on Talk:List of Band of Brothers episodes. Cheers! Chzz ► 16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Until this dispute at WP:EAR is resolved, I strongly suggest that you refrain from tagging any more television episode articles. While you have every right to do so, it would demonstrate good faith and a willingness to collaborate. I also ask that you refrain from commenting on the IP editor; it is not helping. In the future, it may be wise before embarking on tagging a specific show's episodes, to drop a respectful note on a WikiProject page (if one exists) and the talk page of the main show article a day or so in advance to give interested editors a heads up and a chance to perhaps prepare sources. (If you'd like help drafting such a note, let me know.) Again, not a requirement, but it may smooth things over and hopefully keep the inevitable drama to a minimum. Danger ( talk) 12:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey there. About this edit - I'm aware of the notbroken policy, but when I tried the link it took me to the "others" subsection. I've tried it again a few times and it works correctly now. Weird - must have been a glitch. a_man_alone ( talk) 14:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Xeworlebi, may I remind you that once a contribution is contested per WP:BRD, subsequent reverts are Edit warring and are not allowed? Besides, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (and it subsection, WP:UNDUE) is a non-negotiable pillars of Wikipedia. Violating it is unacceptable.
If you think I am wrong, please discuss in talk page before committing further reverts. Fleet Command ( talk) 19:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Spooks (series 7) has been a good topic candidate for a while and I recently came across a post saying it's going to need more comments because so far there has only been two supports and one oppose. So I was hoping since you and I cross paths every now and then, that you wouldn't mind posting your comment on the matter. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you for linking to WP:NOTBROKEN a second time. However, since I clearly linked to it in my own edit-summary you should have been aware that I read it. What that edit-summary said was as follows: WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't say, "Revert anybody correcting redirects." And so it doesn't. What WP:NOTBROKEN means is, don't go about doing it specially. It doesn't tell you to revert people who do it: what is the point of that? ╟─ Treasury Tag► assemblyman─╢ 14:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not a common issue but your pushing forward the ENGLISH ONLY has resulted in keeping hidden the fact that Body of Proof has 13 episodes in its first season, and that said season has been seen in a variety of languages all over the planet. But in English only 9 are being shown (Australia and the UK who knows as of writing this, they could show 13 over the next few months). Care to weigh in on this mess your change in policy creates, effectively lying to English readers and keeping hidden the existence of 4 episodes of a show because they have only been broadcast in Russian, French, Italian, Spanish, and who-knows-what-other-languages. Perhaps revert the change in policy. :nodshead:
As to Smallville, it is futile to disagree with Bignole. Much like it is futile for me to disagree with you. But i still do. Perhaps even worse to disagree with him about Smallville because he effectively has final say on anything and everything Smallville related. In one comment last night he lied on 6 different matters as he told me all the ways in which i was in error. Until last night i didn't know July comes before May but according to Bignole it does. I had a laugh at that one. The complete series DVD release of Smallville was announced in late April and it says 218 + Superboy pilot from 1961 and Bignole unilaterally dismisses that declaration from Warner Bros. about the episode count. But he won't accept that in Canada the première was 2 hours and that the DVD release is not a re-edited special made just for that DVD release but rather is the standard debut for the show, which the USA was not privy to. The article itself actually makes that claim without reference and why? He believes it and he damn well knows there is no reference for it. What reference is given for the première DVD doesn't come close to making the claim he is implying is found in the reference used to cite the existence of the DVD release. For the way he meticulously references things there is no other viable explanation. That would be one reason why i usually do nothing more than read the Smallville articles. Damn that day i found the episode list had become skip-numbered and i had the courtesy to read the talk pages instead of unilaterally fixing it. :bang head on desk now:
delirious &
lost ☯
~hugs~
15:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I just chose that color for all of Fringe's quote boxes, so do you have a better suggestion? Perhaps another shade of blue? (I dislike the default grey color). After all, other series' articles have their own colors (like Glee and Parks and Recreation). Ruby2010 comment! 20:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
#bfdfff
, it's a lighter blue.
Xeworlebi (
talk)
20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Per your comments at Nathan Fillion, no, you're not required to use IPA, it's just the standard. There are other options, spelled out at WP:PRON, but it would be nice if you tagged them with {{ needs IPA}} so that it can be completed quickly. — kwami ( talk) 05:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I tidied up dead links (almost all from RS) as well as cites without titles (eg.Killer Queen: A Tribute to Queen). MusoForde ( talk) 15:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC).
{{
Dead link}}
not removed.
Xeworlebi (
talk)
14:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)I have revered your change to Endgame which was done per your change to the infobox doc because the change you put into the infobox doc is explicitly non-Canadian and you are applying it to a Canadian show. Canadian shows don't have unaired episodes if the production company and the broadcaster ever want to work again / retain their broadcast license. The way the infobox doc was changed by yourself reflects the American (and a few other countries') practice of discarding shows that are not performing to satisfactory levels which result in episodes not being broadcast. Episodes also have to be shown within a specific time. That is partly why Flashpoint returned to CTV in January while CBS held it back another 4 months. I could give you a pile of links to all of this stuff but i get the impression you wouldn't want to read it (most people don't) so unless you ask for it. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 10:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
For future reference, what is the difference between "right" and "upright" for images? -- Boycool ( talk) 20:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I want to remove the nonsense on the List of Falling Skies episodes Talk page. It's silly. Just people arguing and nothing there is constructive.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding
your revert, kindly show me where exactly in the documentation of the
Template:Infobox television season it says that the num_episodes fields must list (and only list) the number of aired episodes (which it doesn't, and I looked before it made that edit), or where community consensus is suggesting anything like it (nothing on the template talk page, and I looked before I made that edit), and what fault you found in my explanatory edit summary of my edit to just revert it like that.
Amalthea
10:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I note that the documentation of {{
Infobox television}} asks to only list aired episodes, I presume you were referring to that. That documentation adds something about number of produced episodes in case of a canceled series, so it apparently does not demand to ever only list the number or released episodes (which, in the case of Game of Thrones, is actually 7, since one additional episode was made available to subscribers on various Internet portals).
Currently the infobox reads "No. of episodes: 6", which at the very least is misleading, as evident by previous changes in this article and in those of most other current TV series. I see no reason against extending the information to list both released and produced episodes, as explained in my edit summary, as long as reliable sources can back it up.
Amalthea
11:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In absence of a reply I will now restore the change. Amalthea 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are marking the South Park episode Cripple Fight with a notability tag. It seeems to be a well established consensus that every South Park episode is inherently notable and gets its own article. Not sure why this episode should be treated any differently. In any event, if this article was to be put to AfD, I seriously doubt it would ultimately be deleted, so the notability tag seems pointless. Anyhow, just my observation, I won't push this further. Safiel ( talk) 21:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
As someone who has a great deal of experience on Wikipedia, would you mind looking over and possibly rating a couple new articles I've created? I want to make sure I didn't miss anything, and have a third party read over and fix anything I may have done wrong. The articles can be found at Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe and " Pilot (White Collar)". Thanks! Kevinbrogers ( talk) 04:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you assist me in developing my new article on Covert Affairs season 1, The draft is right here. maucho eagle ( c) 20:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Xeworlebi, for your helpful copyediting to the article Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 09:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You keep removing my contributions to the Falling Skies episode table. First off, the table is dreadful. It would look better if it looked like List of The Walking Dead episodes. Second, I am trying to fix it up. If you want to fix it up, great. So go ahead then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyDarmodyRules ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
|EpisodeNumber2=
column now. What is there to "fix up"? At this point nothing. Also, no not delete comments from talk pages.
Xeworlebi (
talk)
12:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Hello! I am writing about the episode descriptions that you reverted earlier today [1]. I was under the impression that the content at tv.com is free to use (because it's freely editable by users). I just wanted to say that I am relatively new to wikipedia and wasn't aware that my edits would constitute copyright violations. Apologies for that. -- Tuniof ( talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it common practice to have full season ranking in a table format? That way full season information is easier to find, and prose is used for individual milestone episodes. Jayy008 ( talk) 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
When will Falling Skies (season 1) be able to re-edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllianceApprovedMagician ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you have been adding {{
notability}}
tags to a large number of articles Buffy and Angel articles, without providing any rationale as far as I can tell. There has been a longstanding consensus that individual episodes of these shows have their own articles. If you believe that should change, I recommend you start a centralized discussion at one of the parent article's talk pages, rather than randomly drive-by tagging a large number of articles. Thank you,
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
15:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
notability}}
as is the appropriate way to do for those articles.
Xeworlebi (
talk)
17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)I have requested editing dispute assistance, as your random mass "notability" tagging seems impossible to resolve. You have not once described what you would consider acceptable noteworthiness (or whatever the word should be), nor have you explained how you are suddenly the gatekeeper for notability on the many episode pages you've tagged. You haven't shown us an example by, say, editing one of the pages yourself to make it notable by your standards so we can follow suit and then remove the tags without further trouble. Nor have you accepted the contention that if all the page consists of is plot, there is no need to demand references, as the episode is its own reference, even though that is acceptable WP policy. Such a page should have a "plot only" tag, but it's absurd to demand references for a page that has, as yet, nothing to reference. You can find my request here: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests-- TEHodson 10:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
My solution is to just revert him, as I just did at Sexual Harassment Panda. - Denimadept ( talk) 15:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I've made a small modification to the first sentence, see [2]. I did so based on looking at lots of featured lists. I hope it'll be OK, but ff you're unhappy about it, could we please discuss it on Talk:List of Band of Brothers episodes. Cheers! Chzz ► 16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Until this dispute at WP:EAR is resolved, I strongly suggest that you refrain from tagging any more television episode articles. While you have every right to do so, it would demonstrate good faith and a willingness to collaborate. I also ask that you refrain from commenting on the IP editor; it is not helping. In the future, it may be wise before embarking on tagging a specific show's episodes, to drop a respectful note on a WikiProject page (if one exists) and the talk page of the main show article a day or so in advance to give interested editors a heads up and a chance to perhaps prepare sources. (If you'd like help drafting such a note, let me know.) Again, not a requirement, but it may smooth things over and hopefully keep the inevitable drama to a minimum. Danger ( talk) 12:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey there. About this edit - I'm aware of the notbroken policy, but when I tried the link it took me to the "others" subsection. I've tried it again a few times and it works correctly now. Weird - must have been a glitch. a_man_alone ( talk) 14:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Xeworlebi, may I remind you that once a contribution is contested per WP:BRD, subsequent reverts are Edit warring and are not allowed? Besides, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (and it subsection, WP:UNDUE) is a non-negotiable pillars of Wikipedia. Violating it is unacceptable.
If you think I am wrong, please discuss in talk page before committing further reverts. Fleet Command ( talk) 19:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)