User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:AussieLegend. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Please keep the conversation at either redirecting them or not. Do not bring in other stuff as this is the Afd and consensus discussion. If no one else is against redirecting them when consensus has been reached then it needs to be merged just as others were. There are too many pages and so discussion needs to be on talk page that Afd does not allow for multiple pages. Thanks! 184.58.24.163 (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- We have to take into account everything that is relevant when determining the future of articles. Wider community consensus is always relevant in any discussion. Limited consensus cannot override wider consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Bernadette Rostenkowski (Big Bang Theory)
Dear AussieLegend, I have recently created an article for the Character Bernadette from The Big Bang Theory. I have linked my article to the following article "List Of TheBig Bang Theory characters". Now, my article on Bernadette is not completed yet, but I am currently working on it. Please do not remove the link from the page. I will have the article finished as soon as possible. Tejanorules (talk)TejanorulesTejanorules (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- As it stands now, the article is problematic at best. It's unreferenced, treats the subject in-universe and is essentially inferior to List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Bernadette. I see that you've been working on the article since 11 November. If you can't bring it to a reasonable standard in the next day or two it should probably be userfied until you can get it ready for mainspace, where it should actually be at Bernadette Rostenkowski, not Bernadette Rostenkowski (Big Bang Theory). --AussieLegend (✉) 18:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#What about the reverse?
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#What about the reverse?. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 5 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Template:Infobox Australia state or territory/testcases page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| In appreciation of your continuing work to improve {{Infobox Australian Road}}, including making AWB runs through hundreds of instances of the template. - Evad37 [talk] 04:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC) |
Not appreciated
This editsummary was not appreciated. If you removed the references and made another edit to the template in the time that I removed the references, that is called an edit conflict, not disruptive editing. Debresser (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Really? It wasn't appreciated? "Testcases" pages are for testing usage of the template, not for holding a copy of the template itself.[2] As an experienced editor you should know that. That was not appreciated. The whole point of the testcases page is to include the templates as they are used in articles to make sure the sandbox version works in article space. Removing references doesn't allow a proper test. The correct procedure is to fix the references in the articles and then copy the infobox to the testcases page. This wasn't an edit conflict. Your edit was a full four minutes after my last edit and effectively reverted to a version from 8 minutes prior to that. That wasn't appreciated and it's not an edit conflict. In any case, the changes that you made did not resolve the error, which was caused by an editor typing "23 Eanáir 2013" instead of "23 January 2013". --AussieLegend (✉) 03:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- So it took me 4 minutes to remove them. I have a slow computer and was busy at that time with other things (on Wikipedia).
- You don't seem to be overly familiar with error categories, which is one of my areas of expertise. Please have a good look at the bold and red error message in the references list at the bottom of this page, and you'll see that the problem was not what you think, but precisely what I removed in my edit.
- As an experienced user, you should know how to assume good faith, especially from another experienced user, who took the time to post an explanation on your talkpage. A trout for you! Debresser (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- If there was an edit conflict, you should have checked to see why there was an edit conflict, instead of simply overwriting what I wrote with your preferred version. That was inexcusable. Errors on test pages are expected, and excusable, even if they populate an error category. If they are in mainspace we should correct them, but on test pages they are sometimes unavoidable. The error that you corrected was exceptionally minor, caused by the main references being in the body of an article, not in the infobox. The error that really mattered (there were actually two) placed the page in Category:CS1 errors: dates. This was due to this edit which caused an error in article space. The other error was another date error (
|date=2010-11) which, although minor, is far more important than inconveniently populating an error category, as it appears in article space. You still haven't explained why you felt it necessary to delete all of the testcases from the testcase page and replace them with a copy of the infobox code,[3] instead of fixing the citations. A {{whale}} to you for doing that. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)- I overwrote what you did, unintentionally. The reason I decided to blank the page is that I checked that you already updated the template. So I understood you were happy with the result, and no need to fix. In any case, all is well that ends well. Debresser (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- If there was an edit conflict, you should have checked to see why there was an edit conflict, instead of simply overwriting what I wrote with your preferred version. That was inexcusable. Errors on test pages are expected, and excusable, even if they populate an error category. If they are in mainspace we should correct them, but on test pages they are sometimes unavoidable. The error that you corrected was exceptionally minor, caused by the main references being in the body of an article, not in the infobox. The error that really mattered (there were actually two) placed the page in Category:CS1 errors: dates. This was due to this edit which caused an error in article space. The other error was another date error (
The Penguins of Madagascar
On the Penguins of Madagascar list of episodes has been last episode November 10, 2012. They dont make any episodes after November 10, 2012?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad48 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- We really don't know what is going on with this series. There are still several unaired episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Reverted Edits on Top Gear (2002 TV series)
Dear AussieLegend, I just noticed you reverted two edits I made to the article Top Gear (2002 TV series), and deleted my article Top Gear Awards. I am assuming you thought this was necessary because of the lack of references in the article Top Gear Awards. Well, firstly, I have watched the concerning episodes of Top Gear and have literally copied the names, the nominees and the winners of the awards, so the information used to write the article Top Gear Awards is correct without a doubt. Secondly, the article Top Gear (2002 TV series) displays information about the Car of the Year and the Car of the Decade, also without any reference. So, my question would naturally be "Why is the information on the Car of the Year in the Top Gear (2002 TV series) allowed to stay published, while the information on the Top Gear Awards is not?" I hope we can come to an agreement on whether or not references should be added in either Top Gear (2002 TV series) or Top Gear Awards, and whether or not the latter article could be published again. I sincerely hope it can, because it is a piece of information about Top Gear, which is hard to find on the internet. Michieliosios (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- The main problem is one of notability. Notability is NOT inherited, so the fact that Top gear has an article doesn't automatically mean that a segment that has appeared in only 7 out of 160 episodes over 20 series is worthy of its own article. All subjects must meet the general notability guideline before an article is created and I don't see that the segment has real-world notability. That fact that no references were included means the article fails to establish notability. Note that the notability guideline does not apply to content in an article about a notable subject, so it's fine to include the content in the Top Gear article but it doesn't warrant a separate article. References should be added to the main Top Gear article but even then, that doesn't justify the separate article. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
REALLY?
|
REALLY? |
| I have heard them say the bob barker only has about a knot on the nisshan maru over and over again. I have also heard them say we are going 15 knots to try and catch up to the nisshan maru. They CAN NOT go 18 knots Goldonegal5 (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC) |
- As I've told you before "I heard" is not an appropriate source. The official report into the collision between the Ady Gil and Shonan Maru, which is the reference used in the article, lists the Bob Barker's speed as 18kn. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
This shows that it already has 4 episodes scheduled in January. Adding episodes that only say TBA in the table is WP:CRYSTAL, but saying that the season will continue to air in 2014 is not. I don't see how this is "unverifiable speculation" or any other violation of CRYSTAL. Maybe the air dates indicated in the source can be added if you want 2014 content? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- You can't have it both ways. Why is listing episodes WP:CRYSTAL but adding 2014 based on those episodes NOT WP:CRYSTAL? Adding 2014 to a table that lists no episodes in 2014 is simply not appropriate. This is a discussion we have every year. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because the 2014 episodes already have airdates but no titles. I really don't get why it can't say 2013-14 if everyone already knows the season will air into 2014 especially if confirmed by a source. It would be a violation of crystal when it's like July and there are no sources at all indicating its continuation into 2014. But when it's clear that it will air into 2014 it would be nice to use some common sense when editing these articles. Regardless, it will be changed back to 2013-14 next year so it doesn't really matter. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your rationale does not seem logical. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply only when specific timeframes are met. Unless there is a firm source confirming that a specific episode will definitely air on a certain date, any inclusion is WP:CRYSTAL. Without episode titles the dates listed are only projected dates. They do not confirm that any episodes will air in 2014 so they fail the requirements of WP:V, which is a core policy. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, so when a reliable source publishes projected air dates for episodes to air 2014 it is not confirmed. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Projected air dates are not definite dates, they're merely expected dates and they can be changed, and often are, which is why we give them little credibility. It's not until a specific episode is scheduled for a specific date that we list episodes and even then, it's not an absolute guarantee. It's only once that happens that we add the new year, if necessary. We follow the same process right throughout the year, not just at years end. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, then. I'm beginning to see your logic of waiting until any episodes have actually aired in the new year. But there is some serious inconsistency here. A lot of the "List of...episodes" have (2013-14) in the section header. So which should be the standard exactly? I also read this interesting discussion about the same thing. I really think that something needs to be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines so you don't have discussions like this every year. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Projected air dates are not definite dates, they're merely expected dates and they can be changed, and often are, which is why we give them little credibility. It's not until a specific episode is scheduled for a specific date that we list episodes and even then, it's not an absolute guarantee. It's only once that happens that we add the new year, if necessary. We follow the same process right throughout the year, not just at years end. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, so when a reliable source publishes projected air dates for episodes to air 2014 it is not confirmed. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your rationale does not seem logical. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply only when specific timeframes are met. Unless there is a firm source confirming that a specific episode will definitely air on a certain date, any inclusion is WP:CRYSTAL. Without episode titles the dates listed are only projected dates. They do not confirm that any episodes will air in 2014 so they fail the requirements of WP:V, which is a core policy. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because the 2014 episodes already have airdates but no titles. I really don't get why it can't say 2013-14 if everyone already knows the season will air into 2014 especially if confirmed by a source. It would be a violation of crystal when it's like July and there are no sources at all indicating its continuation into 2014. But when it's clear that it will air into 2014 it would be nice to use some common sense when editing these articles. Regardless, it will be changed back to 2013-14 next year so it doesn't really matter. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 17 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Template:Infobox Swiss town/testcases page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
South Australia article vandalized
Hi, I am contacting you, since you were the last person to edit the "South Australia" article.
When you open the page, the entire browser fills with an image of a penis being masturbated and there is a text bar, about joining some space porgram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australia . Do you know how to remove this vandalism?
Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.106 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: It has been fixed!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.106 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Neither the article or the lead images have been edited, so I don't know what happened there. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Macquarie Culvert - it's not all bad
Thanks for adding the coord. (I do appreciate the help - don't think I just complain about everything....) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
WP Television in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Television for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Map scales
Re: Karijini National Park, Keep River National Park: Do you really prefer these maps to be drilled down to a point in the middle of the park? Backspace (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're talking about. All I did was replace the existing infoboxes with the new version, which removes some now deprecated and redundant parameters using the default locator map settings. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- You might look at the difference between the resultant maps (scales) from your edits and mine. Backspace (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Bunurong Marine National Park
Hi please also fix the stub for "Bunurong Marine National Park" Thanks, Lys from Melbourne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalysporter (talk • contribs) 01:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Done --AussieLegend (✉) 01:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks heaps, last time I needed to fix that I never really didDalysporter (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Ta
HNY and ta etc - so if i get it right, the refs I grab from trove have unwanted thingoes. right? If i look at your edit... satusuro 12:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
F3 edit
I see you partially reverted my edit on Pacific Motorway (Sydney-Newcastle) re F3 usage. I'm happy for my edits to be cleaned up but I'm confused by your edit comment. Please name one physical sign that says "F3" on it today. The only ones that ever existed to my knowledge where on some road name plates (all changed to Pacific Motorway) and on the median crossovers (all now coverplated by blanks). Ausmeerkat (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about the edit summary. I got distracted while writing and it wasn't exactly what I meant. If you look at what I changed, you'll see that I removed "(up until 2013)" from "with this title being used not only colloquially but (up until 2013) on state and federal government documents and web sites and some road signs". "Up until 2013" is a statement that really needs sources, otherwise it has to be treated as original research. There are certainly government websistes that still refer to the F3 freeway.[4] That one was last updated in August, well after the name change was gazetted. The "F3 Freeway to Raymond Terrace upgrade" is still referred to as such and probably will be for some time because a huge amount of documentation has already been produced. Most recently, I saw a trailer mounted sign on the median strip at Heatherbrae displaying "F3 F'way", although it was later changed to "M1 F'way", but not before thousands of holidaying motorists had seen it. I also removed "However with the official change to the M1 designation in 2013, usage of the "F3" term has disappeared from signs and most government websites, and references in the media are slowly adapting to the new, official route number." This is a personal observation, and as such, is also original research. That said, some of what you changed, such as removal of mention of the median crossover signs, was long overdue. Ironically, they were one of the first things to have the F3 designation removed in August. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I agree my edit wasn't great, but I'm concerned that the current revision (like the one before my edit) creates the impression that F3 is the default term used by everybody, which really isn't true anymore. While I'm definitely not trying to suggest that the F3 term is dead, it is true that there are numerous examples of government sites (https://www.livetraffic.com/desktop.html, http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/building_sydney_motorways/m2_f3/) and non-government sites (http://m1traffic.com.au/, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-26/two-killed2c-three-hurt-in-crash-north-of-sydney/5175136, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/driver-leads-police-on-chase-down-m1-from-ourimbah-to-killara-20131230-303bp.html) which refer to M1 where they previously referred to F3. Any suggestions for some middle ground? Ausmeerkat (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Image
Fair enough :) Also, I didn't mean to make it 200, I meant to do 220 but 300 works for me. Happy editing! Lady Lotus • talk 16:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The Bob Barker
Who published the article? I have heard time and time again on the tv show that "we can only go 15knts but we are cathing up to the nisshan" - Peter Hammersted 1st Mate on the MY Bob Barker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldonegal5 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- As has been explained in edit summaries and on your talk page, the document is the official report into the collision between the Shonan Maru and the Ady Gil. If you look at the first page of the document you will see that it is published by Maritime new Zealand, which is the government agency responsible for investigating the incident. As such it is authoritative. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Alex Russo
Two of Alex Russo main appeals which also WoWP series appeals are her physical appearance and style, so please put back the 'Appearance' section on Alex Russo's page since it is a necessary to explain those two characters to the readers. I do notice that the section was poorly written but it is not a reason to delete it, because given time somebody (maybe me) would be able to improve it. Thanks. 212.57.215.1 (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- A claim that her hairstyles are "main appeals" is, at best subjective. The content is, as was indicated in the removal, non-notable trivia. We simply don't go into that sort of detail. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
JDDJS (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
List of Stoked episodes
Your work here was stellar. Thank you for that effort! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Let's just hope nobody screws it up. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Lost Girl Wikipedia
We have a problem. User:JDDJS -- who has never before become involved with the Lost Girl article until 21 January 2014 -- has twice deleted information from the infobox. If fields exists in a template, they exist because they are meant for information to be added to them. Because "A" "B" and "C" don't utilize certain template fields does not mean that it cannot be done by "Z". It is an affront to all of us who have helped the article grow, to have someone come out of the blue and undo what others have done before him. I will report him as a vandal if you provide me with the information on how to do it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Dance Moms episodes
I see that on thefutoncritic that the episode "Abby's OMG Moments" is listed as aired; I know, I saw it. But it's not listed on the official website by Lifetime? I took the episode number off because it seems to not be recognized by them. If there's any other site saying that's recognized by Lifetime (not including websites used as airing guides), then I'll buy it. Otherwise, I stand behind my edit. Even on TV Guide if you click on the title, it reverts The Battle Begins. However, I am willing to add 'the episode in question to a "Special Episodes" section as it's not part of the regular rotation. Ivaroa (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- We don't delete episode numbers simply because they're not shown on an official guide. If we did, there would be hundreds (possibly thousands) of articles without any episode numbers at all because official guides for some series no longer exist. If the episode airs, it gets an episode number in the
|EpisodeNumber=field. That it's not listed in Lifetime's guide is acknowledged by the fact that it doesn't have a number in the|EpisodeNumber2=field. Whether an episode is in the regular "rotation" is completely irrelevant. "Topless Showgirls" is no longer in the rotation and isn't listed in Lifetime's guide either. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for contacting me regarding this user. Davejohnsan (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Removal of content from User talk:DESiegel
in [this edit you reverted a post by another user on my user talk page. Don't ever do that again. If someone sends me a message I want it to remain there unless I think it constitutes vandalism or nonsense. I have retained and archived even the strongest of attacks against myself, and I have no problem retaining anything posted, even if someone alleges that it is posted by a sockpuppet. My talk page header is, i thought, clear about this, but I shall make it even clearer. I have reverted your edit. DES (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't really check your talk page before reverting. It was an obvious sock so I reverted since indefinitely blocked editors are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Your talk page only says "I will generally preserve all comments", but socks are socks. You're well within your rights to restore the content to your talk page if you want to. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Make an apology.
Hello, AussieLegend? You probably don't remember me. It's me, Dk113040. Listen, I just want to apologize for editing the NCIS episodes, it will never happen again.
Sincerely Yours,
Dk113040. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dk113040 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Discuss (at the talk page!) or don't revert
I'm this close to reporting you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- By all means do so. You've been told by two editors that a caption is not required and your edits are perilously close to WP:DE. The discussion is still open so you should be foollowing WP:BRD. Since your edits are those that are contentious, WP:STATUSQUO applies and you shouldn't be restoring the caption until there is consensus to do so. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me!? I am following WP:BRD - I was waiting for you to respond to the reasoning I posted at the talk page quite a while back now! Do you have notifications disabled or something? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- This edit clearly demonstrates that you are not following WP:BRD, which says "When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion". It doesn't say, "when you feel like it revert". As of right now "mutual understanding" has not been achieved. BRD also says "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" and your edit did not do this. If you're still waiting for people to respond to your posts, try leaving a polite note on their talk page if they haven't responded, which you haven't done here. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, but if you're not responding then you're obviously no longer a participant in the discussion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- No it doesn't, it just means I'm busy elsewhere at the moment. Wikipedia discussions can drag on for months. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- In such a situation, I have no way to know that you are busy - all I know is that you aren't responding. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then leave a polite request. It's really that simple. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll keep that tip in mind. Now, would you mind actually continuing the discussion again, since I've already responded? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll get to it when I can. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll keep that tip in mind. Now, would you mind actually continuing the discussion again, since I've already responded? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then leave a polite request. It's really that simple. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- In such a situation, I have no way to know that you are busy - all I know is that you aren't responding. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- No it doesn't, it just means I'm busy elsewhere at the moment. Wikipedia discussions can drag on for months. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, but if you're not responding then you're obviously no longer a participant in the discussion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- This edit clearly demonstrates that you are not following WP:BRD, which says "When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion". It doesn't say, "when you feel like it revert". As of right now "mutual understanding" has not been achieved. BRD also says "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" and your edit did not do this. If you're still waiting for people to respond to your posts, try leaving a polite note on their talk page if they haven't responded, which you haven't done here. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me!? I am following WP:BRD - I was waiting for you to respond to the reasoning I posted at the talk page quite a while back now! Do you have notifications disabled or something? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
NCIS Episode Information about Past, Present and Future.
Listen, with all due respect sir. A comma after the word: "Present" does not sound right for the title, but without the comma, instead it makes very sense and right for the NCIS episode: "Past, Present and Future".
Sincerely Yours,
Dk113040 John Perez 05:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it doesn't seem right but the episode title shown on the title card in the aired episode and reliable sources include the comma, so that's what we have to use. As was indicated in the edit summary prior to yours, Past, Present and Future leads to the wrong article,[5] so your edit broke a link as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Great job with all episode titles and wikilinking. Tremendous! OccultZone (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The Bob Barker
Well who was the article by? The seashepards clearly said that it can only go 15knts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldonegal5 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- As I have already explained, the article was produced by Maritime NZ, the authoriative government agency that investigated the collision between the Ady Gill and Shonan Maru. Some of the information in the article was provided by SSCS. You ave been warned previously that comments such as "The seashepards clearly said" is not an appropriate source. The claims need to be verifiable and yours are not. You also know very well that you have added a number of speeds to the article ranging from 13-16kn. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well 18 knts is completely wrong and leads readers astray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.96.203 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- !8kn is the speed provided by a reputable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well 18 knts is completely wrong and leads readers astray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.96.203 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
NCIS Los Angeles : episode
First sorry for my english, secondly I am a big fan of NCIS Los Angeles and all I write on the wikipedia page is true, title of episodes and summary, so please stop to delete what I wrote, I cna assure you that my source are good. I wrote the summary of "War Cries" and it is good. So let me write information that are correct, because I know all the spoilers for the next episode, thanks !!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavie75flo (talk • contribs) 19:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- You added no sources to the article and the existing source does not support the episodes that you added. You did not add an episode summary for "War Cries", you added a summary for "Tuhon" which was copied from another website and constitutes a copyright violation. Tuhon has been deleted from the listings, per the source used in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- What ??!! You really think that Tuhon has been delete ??!! This is not your source who is wrong it is just that you don't interpreted correctly : Tuhon isn't delete, it just changed the date of broadcasting. I have many source that you can check if you want but I don't write anything, I write it because I love this series and I want the other fans are aware of the news !!! And again sorry for my english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavie75flo (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- The source shows that the press release has been cancelled, which generally just means that the episode has been rescheduled. However, as the source doesn't show that the press release has been replaced, we can't list the episode. All future episodes require inline citations, to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you have reliable sources that show a new airdate, please add them to the article but don't add episodes without sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- You know what ??!! I really don't care, this is your problem, all sites show that the episode will be broadcast Feb. 25, 2014, you base yourself on a site that doesn't refresh, your source is not really trustworthy, it is mistaken about the number of episodes, for example "unwritted rules" is (5x05) not (4x25), so it makes little mistakes like that maybe he made big mistake! Further noting "Fish Out Of Water" as (5x15), you remove "Tuhon" while this episode will air as (5x15) so ... you're wrong and you mislead readers who believe that Tuhon has been deleted. You can let the title of "Tuhon" and specify that the release date isn't yet known. You'll see in a few weeks what I wrote was more or less true. No need to answer what you say not interested me. Casse-bonbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavie75flo (talk • contribs) 17:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- The source used in the article is a reliable source, unlike the fansite that you added. It does not say that "Unwritten Rules" (not "unwritted rules") is 4x25. The number used in the press release is a production number, not an episode number. You've made a mistake by misreading the release. The Futon Critic reproduces the press releases provided by the networks. The press release stating that it will air on February 18 has been withdrawn. This edit by you would seem to support it not being aired on that date so I don't see your problem. As for the bonbons, not really into them. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- You know what ??!! I really don't care, this is your problem, all sites show that the episode will be broadcast Feb. 25, 2014, you base yourself on a site that doesn't refresh, your source is not really trustworthy, it is mistaken about the number of episodes, for example "unwritted rules" is (5x05) not (4x25), so it makes little mistakes like that maybe he made big mistake! Further noting "Fish Out Of Water" as (5x15), you remove "Tuhon" while this episode will air as (5x15) so ... you're wrong and you mislead readers who believe that Tuhon has been deleted. You can let the title of "Tuhon" and specify that the release date isn't yet known. You'll see in a few weeks what I wrote was more or less true. No need to answer what you say not interested me. Casse-bonbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavie75flo (talk • contribs) 17:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- The source shows that the press release has been cancelled, which generally just means that the episode has been rescheduled. However, as the source doesn't show that the press release has been replaced, we can't list the episode. All future episodes require inline citations, to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you have reliable sources that show a new airdate, please add them to the article but don't add episodes without sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- What ??!! You really think that Tuhon has been delete ??!! This is not your source who is wrong it is just that you don't interpreted correctly : Tuhon isn't delete, it just changed the date of broadcasting. I have many source that you can check if you want but I don't write anything, I write it because I love this series and I want the other fans are aware of the news !!! And again sorry for my english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavie75flo (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
My reason why I'm re-ordering writers and directors in multiple articles.
Dear AussieLegend, Listen. The reason why I'm doing this re-ordering names because I have a huge DVD collection in my own house full of TV shows like Law & Order, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, The Good Wife, and Criminal Minds. What I do is, I go over the scenes where they show their writers' names playing from the DVD on the VLC Media Player on my computer, and so I go over the names every episode I double check many times. And then when I see the names on the screen, I edit the articles and put the writers' names in order as they should shown on the DVD TV show like Law & Order and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, you know what I mean. Listen, if you don't like it, I can change it back to the original order, I mean, what I'm doing is right, not disruptive editing, you know. Please send me a message as soon as possible, thank you.
Dk113040 John Perez 11:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Part of your edits (formatting, "and" to "&" etc) seem reasonable but the swapping of names seems unnecessary effort. That said, if you want to make that effort, please ensure you use edit summaries. More importantly, please check that your changes to wikilinks are correct. I just had to fix a couple in Law & Order (season 3) that were correct before you changed them. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
MythBusters Ep 87 "Myth (R)Evolution"
While the cited reference to this episode (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/2007-episodes17.htm) refers to it as "Myth Revolution", the voice announcer in the actual episode refers to it as "Myth Evolution". Also, the title card in the episode has "Myth Evolution" clearly written. Should the Wikipedia page match the episode or the cited reference? Is there a concensus or an official rule to be followed when there is such a discrepancy?
Just to be clear, I am well aware of the similiarly titled episode 131 from the 2009 season in which the title card reads "MythBusters Evolution II" (actually its really written in all caps but I think this is an appropriate title case as you can't always tell the case of the letters as they are written in this show).
Fozolo (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- The cards that they show in the episodes often don't reflect the episode titles and this is the case with this episode as multiple reliable sources list the episode title as "Myth Revolution".[6][7][8][9] Since one of those sources is Discovery's official episode guide, "Myth Revolution" seems pretty authoritative. Discovery's guide is the most consistent when it comes to MythBusters. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've compiled a short list comparing some of the publisher's titles with the titles on the cards in the episodes from the 2007 season.
EP Title on Wikipedia Title in Episode Time Displayed 14 Baseball Myths BASEBALL MYTHS 2:23 15 Viewer's Special VIEWER SPECIAL 1:50 16 Red Rag to a Bull HOT BULLETS 1:32 17 Superhero Hour SUPERHERO MYTHS 1:40 18 Myth Revolution MYTH EVOLUTION 1:48 19 Trailblazers VAPOR TRAIL 1:33 20 Exploding Water Heater WATER HEATER ROCKET 1:46 21 Special Supersized Myths SUPERSIZE SPECIAL 2:10 22 Shooting Fish in a Barrel SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL 1:35 23 Pirates 2 PIRATE SPECIAL 2 1:48 24 Confederate Steam Gun STEAM Machine GUN 1:31 25 Airplane Hour AIRPLANE SPECIAL 2:26
- Clearly "The cards that they show in the episodes often don't reflect the episode titles". Yet, there still may be a question as to which is the most reliable source among multiple conflicting reliable sources. The Wikipedia page on identifying reliable sources lists "the piece of work itself" above "the creator of the work" and "the publisher of the work". Is it reasonable to believe the order of that list implies an order of precedence? If so, the work itself trumps all other reliable sources. However, someone wishing to find and watch a particular episode (for example on Amazon), would benefit most from the knowing the title used by the publisher. Other fans may prefer the title used in the work itself, perhaps feeling that it is more respectful to the creators of the work rather than to the publishers. In any case, while readers may benefit from the inclusion the publisher's title, including the in episode title card titles could be useful as well. It may also reduce misunderstandings when they differ.
- Fozolo (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Your AIV report
User's edits were moot, as they were a sockpuppet. Blocked accordingly. Just thought I'd let you know - thanks! m.o.p 16:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! --AussieLegend (✉) 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Re: Article size
I did make a point to leave the tag rather than edit the article myself, because I'm not well-acquainted with the subject matter enough to know what's essential and any such changes would both take an extremely long time and be likely reverted at once. Perhaps I should have started a talk page discussion as well, and I think I'll get on it now, though.
For the record, the template says that the article may be too long. I don't see what's inconsistent about labeling an article that "may need to be divided" as such. Tezero (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- "May" is ambiguous, and the wording of the template has been discussed on the template's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
NCIS Episode Information about Past, Present and Future.
Dear AussieLegend,
With all due respect sir, once again, check out the NCIS episode: "Past, Present, and Future that I updated, pretty impressive, huh?
Dk113040 John Perez 07:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 2/20/2014
- Which edits are you talking about? I checked Past, Present, and Future and there have been no edits to it since Octover 2013. The only relevant change to NCIS (season 11) was this, which isn't very impressive at all. What would have been really impressive would have been a response to this question. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Image change
Why do you keep disputing my changes? Your views are not really supported by others because you seem to be the only one with the problem and I've noticed you do often revert things, this behaviour is somewhat rigid as nothing gets changed and the images remain dull. The Opera House nor the Harbour Bridge need be included. Look at the templates for the US, Japan, etc... the city icons aren't included, it's just shots of the skyline. Melbourne's image doesn't need the Shrine of Remembrance or any other Melbourne icon, nor does Brisbane or Perth. So why Sydney? If you have access to a camera, live in Sydney, and can take decent photos then I suggest you take a more recent one with the Bridge and Opera House if it really suits you, because the current image that you are so sent on is quite poor. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- The changes you've made are not necessarily improvements and I am clearly NOT the only one who has been reverting them.[10][11][12][13][14] This edit was a clear violation of WP:OVERLINK so it should have been reverted. We have policies and guidelines for good reason. There's nothing wrong with the image that was restored, for reasons explained on the template's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Law & Order - Region 4 DVD release date for season 1 table removed, why?
Dear AussieLegend,
I just checked the List of Law & Order episodes right, it seems to me you made an little accident by removing the Region 4 DVD release date for Season 1 of Law & Order which it did exist in the past. Do you have the chance to change it back the way it was, so you can find out to add release date for Region 4.
Dk113040
2/26/2014 John Perez 16:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Top Gear is a British television show
The above is the lead for the article. Just a heads up. CapnZapp (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems strange for Top Gear (2002 TV series). I'll fix it. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- My impetus is that if you use "series" you must watch out for any confusion between series=show and series=season. Anytime the resulting language becomes "AAAA is a series in its NNth series" (such as became the result of your recent edit) the confusion (especially for international readers) is not worth the purity. I would like you to strongly consider widening what terminology you find acceptable in order to minimize such unfortunate phrasings. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- We've discussed "show" vs "series" at WT:TV and "series" was preferred. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- My impetus is that if you use "series" you must watch out for any confusion between series=show and series=season. Anytime the resulting language becomes "AAAA is a series in its NNth series" (such as became the result of your recent edit) the confusion (especially for international readers) is not worth the purity. I would like you to strongly consider widening what terminology you find acceptable in order to minimize such unfortunate phrasings. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Kitchen Nightmares
I see our old pal Roman888 is back IP hopping and stirring trouble on both Maylasian-related articles (copyvios being his M.O.) and on Kitchen Nightmares. The less we engage him the better, of course. I've given Moonriddengirl a heads up about the copyvio, but SPI is so backed up a report there is pointless. If he stirs things too much, I'll request page protection for the talk page. Given the time there, he must get liquored up and bored, then grab his phone and start stirring the pot again. --Drmargi (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- This edit by a newly registered editor seems suspicious. Prosloon did add a "rationale" for the nomination, but at the wrong page.[15] I've reverted both edits since it's clearly a frivolous, flawed nomination based on the talk page discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was just headed this way to say the same thing to you. This is Roman888's M.O. to the letter. Are you familiar with his case? I seem to recall you are, but wasn't quite certain. He'll be at this for three or four days, then get bored. He's originally from Malaysia, lives around Sydney, and is long site-banned for copyvios, battleground behavior and vandalism such as this. I think a quick trip to SPI is in order. --Drmargi (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Bleeding obvious
The red link was to an article i was in process of creating, its one thing to have rampant deletionists ruling the roost these days (not you, the chooks from elsewhere). but hell, now i shall have to create first and then link? sad, to think how easy it is to see a red link as an excuse to revert.. I expect a thanks when i get around to creating that article... satusuro 10:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- looked around and couldn't find the article so assumed you must have made a mistake. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- delayed by further distractions, but thanks... I understand by a reply like that satusuro 12:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- i hate the use of disused and defunct in categories - but we have to live these things - could you look at the redirect i did for former hospitals in oz - do think its ok? if not please feel free to put it up for empty speedy, ta satusuro
- I don't really see an issue with it. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Issue about the brand-new Law & Order (season 14) U.S. DVD cover.
Dear AussieLegend,
I have a slight problem with the photo I uploaded that indicates the Law & Order (season 14) U.S. DVD cover. What I'm trying to do is enhance the brand-new picture for the future so many viewers who visit Wikipedia to see that photo, and like I said, I'm was always trying to help this uploading thing, but do me favor, please, I beg you. Can you please keep this brand-new picture viewed on Wikipedia from now on and let's forget the old picture, can you do that for me? Please contact me, immediately, ASAP, regarding the brand-new Law & Order - Season 14.jpg file that I uploaded. Thank you.
Dk113040 John Perez 06:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- File:Law & Order - Season 14.jpg was deleted over a week ago. You know why because I explained why on your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The a & b & c incident.
Dear AussieLegend,
Hey, I didn't do anything wrong here, hello! I'm innocent! I didn't mess with the articles including that a & b & c thing.
Dk113040 John Perez 09:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes you did. The change, which you have been warned about several times, was made by your account.[16] --AussieLegend (✉) 09:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Sigh...
Stop using your power to dispute and revert my edits WHICH are not unconstructive. There's nothing wrong with that picture, and you have consistently given the most superficial reasons for not accepting my proposed replacement ("doesn't feature Opera House/Harbour Bridge"). Why reduce an entire city to two landmarks, which aren't even that recognisable from the angle presented in the template? The one I have removed is not irreplaceable, as other editor's have pointed out, yet you seem to have your heart set on it. This type of rigidity is so typical of Australian Wikipedia editors and I find it to be bizarre and completely frustrating. I've never really encountered this problem over edit replacement, except with you and two other Australian editors. If you really are so determined to prevent that particular picture from replacing the current one, then I suggest you find a worthwhile image to take its place because the one constantly proposed by you is old and to be honest, quite dull. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- You've been reverted by two editors so far so you need to discuss the problem. Edit-warring isn't going to keep your changes in the template. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
James May's Man Lab Season 3 episode grid background color.
I'm sorry, but what kind of contrast do you have in mind? Contrast between the main white background and episode grid color? Or contrast between Seasons 1, 2 and 3 episode grid colors? Either way, that high cyan is very unpleasant to the eye, that's why I changed it to a darker color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by February 1514 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
What do you think?
Do you think a certain editor with whom we have both been in constant communication for the last few weeks has another sock puppet account? I noticed one of the reverts you made on Law & Order season 18, and it gave me a hunch. I'm debating whether to open another report on him, but I wanted to check with you first and see if you've had a similar intuition. Davejohnsan (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- It appears we're on the same page. A review of the contributions for both editors shows almost identical edits at the same articles. I've left posts on both of their talk pages that make it obvious that I suspect sockpuppetry. I was actually considering asking you exactly what you asked me. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop.
You constantly team up with Bidgee because your both ridiculously rigid in your editing style. Flags are used frequently on Geographic articles, particularly for cities and countries. I've seen them in both Featured and Good Articles for cities. If you keep reverting my edits then I'll have to open up a complaint. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Have you considered the reason that we're reverting you is that you're wrong? Flags should not be used for decorative purposes and that's how they were used in your edit. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Rome episode
Substituting all instances of the template Template:Infobox Rome episode while the TfD discussion is still ongoing was a very poor decision you made. You can't impose the outcome you desire with the excuse that as a result of your unilateral changes we now must follow your decision because otherwise all the templates will be broken. Your changes were, by your own judgement, "bold" and thus were likely to be reverted at any time.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion had been underway for 3 weeks with only delete votes, one of which was yours. My solution implemented what should have been uncontroversial changes in support of those votes. When I made those changes I did everything, leaving other editors with nothing to do, other than redirecting the template. Your reversion of only the template changes has left a lot of work. If you're going to be bold, and yes, your reversion was bold, don't do a half-arsed job. Revert everything if you're confident you are correct. What you did is just lazy editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Reverting unilateral changes (which were obviously not that uncontroversial) and restoring the stable version from six months ago was not bold, it was the predictable outcome of your ill-advised actions. Given that you refuse to own up to your own blunder I'm left with little choice but to clean up after you, as not doing so would be detrimental to the project. Regards,--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Justify your lazy editing all you want but it's good to see that you're now fixing the mess you created. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Reverting unilateral changes (which were obviously not that uncontroversial) and restoring the stable version from six months ago was not bold, it was the predictable outcome of your ill-advised actions. Given that you refuse to own up to your own blunder I'm left with little choice but to clean up after you, as not doing so would be detrimental to the project. Regards,--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Your changes to Windows XP
Per MOS:DASH, WP does not use em dashes surrounded by spaces. Either en dash with spaces (which was what was there before), or em dash with no spaces.
Per WP:CITEVAR, please do not change citation formats just because you prefer one style over another. And per WP:CITESTYLE, there is nothing wrong with yyyy-mm-dd. The changes you made in this area are purely gratuitous. Jeh (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not really sure what you're on about. I made changes with a widely used script and I can't see where it added em dashes when it replaced hyphens with dashes. (hyphens with spaces, not en dashes with spaces were in the article!) As for the dates, the changes I made were to bring dates in recently added citations into line with the citations in the rest of the article, so WP:CITEVAR doesn't apply to my edits. It does apply to the editor who added the citations. Do you leave a warning on his page? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Fair point on the dates in the cites. Re the dashes, this is very odd. The system I was on earlier today made the new dashes look like em dashes. Here they look like en dashes, and they search that way too. My apologies. Jeh (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Infobox TV
You can add the parameter, it is necessary to place issues on other networks, I tried to put it but I do not know.--GeorgeMilan / talk 19:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- The addition of extra parameters is only possible after discussion arrives at a consensus to add them. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have asked that in the discussion of the staff, but no one answers. Thanks for your help.--GeorgeMilan / talk 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you on to me with my edits?
Dear AussieLegend,
Listen, I just found out some of my edits were reverted by you in the past, like you watching my every move I do, and every edit I do, huh? Like you always do every time I upload a picture on Wikipedia on a article. Can you explain why? And I'm not mad at you at all, it's just, I'm curious about it. Please tell me...
Dk113040 John Perez 06:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your edits have followed a disturbing trend, as explained to you at length on your talk page. To be brutally honest, I am concerned about your competency to edit Wikipedia and I am concerned that you are still engaged in sockpuppetry. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Dear AussieLegend,
- So, you telling me that I'm in a lot of trouble right now along with this sockpuppetry incident? I'm telling you, I'm innocent. This is my own account that I only own.
- Dk113040
- John Perez 07:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- You've denied things in the past, but the evidence is there. It seems strange that another editor is making exactly the same edits that you have, only when you have been warned about your edits. You've uploaded more than 50 images, almost all of which have been deleted because there were copyright issues. You persistently make edits that are reverted, quite appropriately, by other editors. You need to re-examine your edit history and learn from the advice you have been given. You need to heed advice that you are give the first time you are given it, not after you have been warned several times. While not directly related to the above, you need to ensure that your signature complies with the requirement that there is at least one link to your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
About the NCIS episode: "Crescent City".
Dear AussieLegend,
Just today I was watching NCIS, and what I saw on the TV screen was the episode title displayed online was: "Crescent City (Part I)". Is there anyway it can be changed to the "(Part I)" instead? Is that all right with you? If you say no, that's okay, but I'm just asking.
Dk113040 John Perez 06:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I know how to provide a source now. As I did on NCIS (Season 11)
Dear AussieLegend,
Hey, guess what? I just know how to provide a reference source on one of the upcoming new episodes on NCIS for Season 11, do you know anything about the NCIS episode called: "Alleged?" You should thank me for adding this new episode on Wikipedia, and I knew it now was simple that I know how to provide a source.
John Perez 20:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Census 2006 AUS/Sandbox
A tag has been placed on Template:Census 2006 AUS/Sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Bleakcomb (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Not COI
Please stop. There is no basis for the
 | A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (March 2014) |
claim on the page Edward J. Walsh. The above COI tag does not match the definition of COI for Wikipedia. For instance, a close connection may be apparent, but an actual conflict must be documented. It is not enough to say, as you have, that a relationship may exist. You must provide actual evidence that edits are made to advance the personal interests of the editor. You have not done so and my edits have not done so. Furthermore, there is no evidence that my editing has affected the neutral point of view for this article.
Inclusion of the COI tag appears to be used, therefore, in a punitive fashion which violates wikipedia values. Your editing and administrative privileges will be submitted for review if you continue adding the COI tag with no basis for doing so. Your actions and threats of blocking are, furthermore, not appropriate for COI issues, unless you intend to ask another administrator to review your claims of a COI. This is beginning to look like an inappropriate edit war due to your actions.
I will leave the COI for now due to my desire to always consider Administrator and editor actions from a goodfaith perspective even though your behavior suggests otherwise.
You are engaging in punitive administrative actions and disruptive editing. Consider being a good administrator by operating from a good faith perspective. ✉ Spinfisher (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC) spinfisher
- The purpose of the COI tag is to notify readers and editors of a close contact between a major contributor and the article subject. From the information provided in the images that you have uploaded, you are clearly related to the article's subject, and therefore the potential for a conflict of interest does exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Undoing my edit on the NCIS (Season 11) page
You undid my edit on the NCIS Season 11 page [17] and said about infobox instructions, but you did not link to them and there isn't anything on the page itself? Can you link me to them? --Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The instructions for {{Infobox television season}} say that "
num_episodes" field "should remain empty until the season has finished airing." --AussieLegend (✉) 19:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Undoing Two and a Half Men (season 12) edits
I understand why you undid all of it, thanks. Sorry for putting it up too early, my bad. I have everything saved on my computer so I can put it up later in the summer (assuming July or August is a reasonable time to do so). Tyman222 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Precious again
Aussie projects
Thank you for quality articles on your well organised projects, such as the lists of rivers of New South Wales, for vivid images, for fighting vandalism, and for clarifying: "An infobox is not trivia, it's a summary of pertinent points about the subject." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
A year ago, you were the 445th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Fonts and vector.css
Thank you so much for dropping by my talk page and helping me make Wikipedia look as it should again. I really appreciate it! Huw Powell (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC) ou're welcome. I'd only just fixed the problem myself and I was happy to help. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- (watching) The above award was (grumbling) made to suite the new font. If you keep the old, please feel free to adjust the image size (help given in the link), so that it looks aligned to you, unless you think it's more important how it looks to others ... (I better don't say how I like the change.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Production Code
Dear AussieLegend. Please see my post [here] on an issue of your interest. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
About the Law & Order (season 1) DVD cover photo.
Dear AussieLegend,
Listen, about the Law & Order season 1 DVD cover photo that I uploaded, why don't you remove the borders on the current picture that is on the article. So, that'll make really sense, is that okay with you?
John Perez 10:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why don't you remove the borders? I'm busy constantly fixing the same errors that you keep making despite having been warned about on numerous occasions. And how does that address the comments I made on your talk page? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear AussieLegend, how can I remove the borders?
John Perez 10:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Not COI
Please stop. There is no basis for the
| A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (March 2014) |
claim on the page Edward J. Walsh. The above COI tag does not match the definition of COI for Wikipedia. For instance, a close connection may be apparent, but an actual conflict must be documented. It is not enough to say, as you have, that a relationship may exist. You must provide actual evidence that edits are made to advance the personal interests of the editor. You have not done so and my edits have not done so. Furthermore, there is no evidence that my editing has affected the neutral point of view for this article.
Inclusion of the COI tag appears to be used, therefore, in a punitive fashion which violates wikipedia values. Your editing and administrative privileges will be submitted for review if you continue adding the COI tag with no basis for doing so. Your actions and threats of blocking are, furthermore, not appropriate for COI issues, unless you intend to ask another administrator to review your claims of a COI. This is beginning to look like an inappropriate edit war due to your actions.
I will leave the COI for now due to my desire to always consider Administrator and editor actions from a goodfaith perspective even though your behavior suggests otherwise.
You are engaging in punitive administrative actions and disruptive editing. Consider being a good administrator by operating from a good faith perspective. ✉ Spinfisher (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC) spinfisher
- As has been explained previously, you are clearly, closely related to the subject of the article. Therefore, there is a potential COI issue with your edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
More than concern needed
- There has to be more than "concern" due to a person's relation. There has to be actual evidence that bias exists. You have not shown this, and you cannot show this. Therefor you are acting in an irresponsible manner for an editor including violating several core principles of the Wikipedia project. This is unfortunate and immature. However, in the interest of the project, you may continue in your unhelpful efforts unimpeded for now. -- spinfisher (✉) — Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Epping page: Copying and external links
Hi, AussieLegend, and thanks for taking the time to help out with my changes to the page for Epping.
Being quite new to this, I was wondering whether I could ask a couple of questions so I can learn to improve my editing in future.
Firstly, I see that you added to and from id numbers to the "copied from" template. I saw these in the template, but there was no description of what they were or where they come from. I tested it without them, and it worked, so I left them out. But you obviously know the secrets: what are these fields, and where do they come from?
Secondly, I read your comment about not putting external links in the text. This surprised me because it is in the WP notes and the cheat sheet, and the existing page is full of them, but the MoS says otherwise so I need to find a better way. (A pity, because I put the time in to find them all and put that together - a lesson I will remember!) So is it best to convert all of those external links into citations? Even the ones that are council links to each individual park? There are a couple other options for the parks that I could consider:
- link each one to one of the three council sites which lists each council's parks etc, or
- break up the table into three sections, one for each council's facilities.
I am keen to learn to be a better editor, so I would appreciate your point of view on the best way to handle this situation. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you look at the instructions for {{copied}}, it describes how to find
to_oldidandfrom_oldidin the "Parameters" section. Regarding the external links, I find it best to add them as citations, as I did in this edit, with the Epping Aquatic and Leisure Centre. The first of your park options is probably the best, although the parks table could be handled by adding a "sources" column and putting the citations there:
| Name | Address | Facilities | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boronia Park | 37 Bridge St, Epping | Sporting field, cricket pitch, children’s playground (shaded), children’s bike track, seating, picnic shelters, barbeque, public toilets | [1] |
- That said, WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies, so simply listing the park names with the council website(s) as citations is probably the best. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Great - thanks again for your tireless assistance and willingness to help. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Heleen Mees edit-warring / reverting
Now that Bmwz3hm has been blocked from editing and told that if she edit-wars again she will be blocked again, IP user 113.28.12.161 and Kinker020 and have edit-warred and reverted several times with no consensus.
Heleen Mees revision history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&action=history --TheCockroach (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Include flag field?
How is it not applicable? Cities in Australia such as Sydney have flags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyLogs (talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- The flags used are based on the logos used by LGAs. These have a specific field in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Include coat of arms field?
How is it not applicable? Cities in Australia such as Sydney have coat of arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyLogs (talk • contribs) 11:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Like flags, coats of arms are used so very little that they are not significant enough to include in Australian infoboxes. And please, don't remove content from talk pages. Talk pages are archived, not cleaned. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Aussie. As you can see, I've just indefinitely blocked Bmwz3hm. Since they can now only edit their talk page, would you please avoid continuing to debate them there? I would prefer to not have to remove their talk access before they have a chance to cool down, but the more the argument there continues the more out-of-hand I suspect things will get. Oh and since I know you'll be wondering: I plan to leave the article full-protected until the SPI is sorted out and has caught any socks. Once that's done, I'll drop the protection to semi. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to reinstate pending changes, as that will at least allow any constructive IPs to edit, rather than semi the article. I doubt that Bmwz3hm will cool down. She just doesn't seem to get the point. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Australian cities template
Then why don't you crop it? Ashton 29 (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The dark sky is the problem. Cropping it to maintain the aspect ratio would chop off much of the city. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Defamatory material that you are re-publishing.
Dear Aussie Legend, You are helping to support defamatory comments against Peter Rees. If you actually listen to what Adam says he never mentions anyone by name. He is doing this for a reason. He would be sued if he did. There are repeated comments and attempts by others to address this issue. These changes have been full foot noted and referenced. I have already referred this issue to the wikipedia organization. We would appreciate your support in making wikipedia accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter rees tv (talk • contribs) 07:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The problem at the moment is that you are replacing sourced content with unsourced content, which is not permitted. Nor should you, if you are Peter Rees, be editing an article of which you are the subject. Your efforts at the Peter Rees talk page and the Help Desk were good starts but none of your other edits have been appropriate. Regarding the YouTube video, Savage refers the then producer who is no longer with the show. How many people are in that category? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
"Non-notable trivia" on The Convention Conundrum
You removed the Cultural References section of The Convention Conundrum on the grounds that it was "non-notable trivia". I see that as per WP:TRIVIA, this may have been a valid edit but I have noticed similar sections on episodes about the TV show How I Met Your Mother (see Single Stamina#Cultural references as a randomly picked example). I also seem to recall seeing a section labelled "Trivia" on a TBBT episode, although cannot seem to find it. WP:TRIVIA doesn't explicitly ban all "Trivia" sections and in a TV program such as TBBT where "nerd culture" is a very prominent aspect of the show, I think a few lines dedicated to an explanation of what Howard meant by "Ferrigno, Bana, Norton and Ruffalo" or to linking to Bill Nye the Science Guy and Leonard Nimoy is relevant. If you still think that the trivia section has no place on WP, would it be acceptable for me to try and integrate the text and links into other parts of the article (mostly the plot description)? Bilorv (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Trivia isn't banned, but it needs to be managed carefully. When it's just a list of reference to something it serves no encyclopaedic purpose. It's like anything else, it needs to treated encyclopaedically, with appropriate sourcing. Single Stamina#Cultural references is an example of something that should be deleted, since it's unsourced and primarily original research. The ideal Wikipedia article does not contain "See Also", "Trivia", "In popular culture", "Cultural references" or "External links" sections. If it's worth including in the article, then it should be possible to incorporate it into the prose, with support from reliable sources. I suggest reading Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content for more guidance. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
why did you change the King Of Queens and the Real hustle Images back to their old ones as they are better versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnGormleyJG (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- As I explained in edit summaries and on the file reversions, at 120px The King of Queens image was too small and we use the series logo in infoboxes, We don't use season specific images. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- That one in The Real Hustle was the season 8 logo you changed to there is no series logo so I changed it to the most recent season which includes the new recruits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnGormleyJG (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless, you can't simply upload a different image over the old one. The non-free use rationale needs to be updated, and you did not do that. Nor can you answer "n.a." to questions in the FUR template. All fields must be properly filled out in order to comply with our non-free content policy. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- It needed a new photo as the old one was dated and how do you see every edit I make? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnGormleyJG (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone can view your edit history. It's useful for instances such as when an administrator is deciding how long to block you when your edits are disruptive. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- It needed a new photo as the old one was dated and how do you see every edit I make? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnGormleyJG (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless, you can't simply upload a different image over the old one. The non-free use rationale needs to be updated, and you did not do that. Nor can you answer "n.a." to questions in the FUR template. All fields must be properly filled out in order to comply with our non-free content policy. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- That one in The Real Hustle was the season 8 logo you changed to there is no series logo so I changed it to the most recent season which includes the new recruits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnGormleyJG (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Enforcing xenophobic rule
Besides the fact that you have no evidence that the foreign broadcast wasn't shown in english with foreign subtitling. Upholding this promotes a xenophobic culture within the english and other translations on articles. How this short sighted ruling made it in so easily makes one question the validity of other guidelines. helmboy 21:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- What nonsense. You can't cry xenophobia as a rationale for "assuming" something is being done in another country. As Aussie has explained to you in some detail, there is consensus governing inclusion of television broadcasts in non-English speaking countries. We cannot assume a program is broadcast in English (which is a proper noun and capitalized, no matter how clever you want to be); the burden is on you to provide a source an English-language program is broadcast in English with or without subtitles rather than being dubbed into the language of the country. No source? It stays out. The standard is that only English-language broadcasts go on the broadcast list in the en-wikipedia. --Drmargi (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking for someone on their talk page, just shows a that you have no respect of boundaries. As for nonsense, the consensus that was reached is clearly xenophobic and based on your rationale, there should be absolutely no mention of anything that is non-English in English targeted articles. helmboy 05:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you look at the top of my talk page, you'll see a notice saying that friendly talk page stalkers are welcome here so Drmargi's comments are more than welcome, and correct. If ou don't like the consensus, then feel free to start another discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking for someone on their talk page, just shows a that you have no respect of boundaries. As for nonsense, the consensus that was reached is clearly xenophobic and based on your rationale, there should be absolutely no mention of anything that is non-English in English targeted articles. helmboy 05:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yet another common practice Helmboy seems to want to reinvent to suit his own agenda. I've tagged his page with a 3RR warning. --Drmargi (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I added a note as well, and some guidance on what "non-English language" actually means. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yet another common practice Helmboy seems to want to reinvent to suit his own agenda. I've tagged his page with a 3RR warning. --Drmargi (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
List of Castle episodes
I would love to be "legally bound" to Kate Beckett, ifyouknowhutimean. *Homer Simpson drool* — Wyliepedia 16:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Boys.... --Drmargi (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- ^ "Boronia Park". parracity.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 15 April 2014.