Jump to content

User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

MOS:DTT

Do me a favor? One of our favorite editors is adding heading to tables that are directly below a header. My contention is the header serves as a table heading (or caption as they call it) He's saying MOS:DTT requires one; the actual language is should have one, which allows for discretion. Big difference! He's done it at Hotel Hell and Go On (TV series) that I've seen. I'd appreciate your thoughts. --Drmargi (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"One of our favorite editors", huh. TBrandley 00:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) MOS:DTT calls for table captions, and at my recent FLC, the director told me to add them. That is where I assume TBrandley got that from. They are there for the purpose of screen readers. By the way, approaching TBrandley about his edit summary, after making that sarcastic "favorite editors" comment above, seems hypocritical. However, I suppose there's the slight chance that the comment wasn't sarcastic. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
"Let's try to remember WP:CIVIL when writing edit summaries. You can make your point without being sarcastic, and in once case, bordering on insulting. Remember, too, how WP:BRD works" oh, and that's what you say. Huh. "One of our favorite editors". Anyway, regarding them, the table captions have been listed as a "high priority" at MOS:DTT itself. Take a look at List of Awake episodes, Ed, Edd n Eddy, etc., Drmargi. TBrandley 00:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
And while we're at it, let's remember WP:AGF. Meanwhile, I'll await the thoughts of the person to whom my question was directed. --Drmargi (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Screen readers don't need captions to work. I have a copy of JAWS and it doesn't make one bit of difference whether there is a caption or not. MOS:DTT#Correct table captions does say that tables need captions, but where the table is the only content in the section, a caption is incredibly redundant, not to mention completely unnecessary. The screen reader makes it blindingly obvious that there is a table and the already existing heading is more than sufficient. We wouldn't create the following:

Episodes

Program name episodes

No. Title Original air date
1"Episode one"September 20, 2012 (2012-09-20)
Summary

See also

That, however, is effectively what adding a caption to the table does. Captions are appropriate in sections such a NCIS (TV series)#Ratings, where there is text between the heading and the table, but not in NCIS (season 7)#Ratings, where the only content is the ratings table. Sections that include multiple tables should have a caption on each table. Ed, Edd n Eddy is a case where captions are appropriate but at List of Awake episodes they're completely redundant. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I do see your point, and agree that it is redundant, but MOS:DTT lists the table captions as a "high priority". Also, The Rambling Man has also requested that they be added a number of times at FLC, including List of Grey's Anatomy episodes' Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Grey's Anatomy episodes/archive1, as well as many FLRCs. Also, another conversation regarding this was already talked about here if anyone would like to see. Speaking of MOS:DTT, scope row and cols have to also be added to these article. Apologies if I made anyone feel bad, etc. above. Regards, TBrandley 03:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes MOS:DTT lists them as high priority but that doesn't mean "absolutley has to have one". You need to be practical here. In a section where the only content is a table, the section header serves as the table caption, so it's not necessary to add a caption to the table. Regarding scopes, this has already been addressed. As the result of the List of Friends episodes FLC debacle, significant changes were made to {{Episode list}} to address that. A number of changes requested at FLCs have been made without any understanding of how {{Episode list}} works and more importantly, without any idea of how screen readers interpret the tables. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Aussie! That was exactly the point I was trying to make -- we don't need a second table heading/title to do what the section heading already does in a section with no additional text. And as you say, because they're reading the published text, not the mark-up language, Jaws and other screen readers can read the heading text already in place and don't require an entirely redundant table headings (mislabeled as captions, which actually sit below a picture or figure); to make an article 504 compliant, pretty much all that's needed are properly formatted hidden descriptions of images and other graphic files. Regardless of what the MOS says, there are no hard-and-fast rules, just guidelines, and we can throw them out as the situation warrants; without question, redundant table headings are one of those situations. TBrandley, you did a good job at aiming your sarcasm directly at me; it's a shame you can't do the same with your apology. --Drmargi (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to RfC

Hi Aussie. I wanted to invite you to participate in an RfC regarding adding color differentiation to Wiki markup, particularly towards references. You are welcome to participate whenever you are able. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Vacy, New South Wales

This is a note to myself (and any of my talk page stalkers who are bored :)) that I've opened a DRN discussion about Vacy, New South Wales. -- AussieLegend (✉) 10:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

NCIS (TV series)

We get a cite-error without that. Perhaps you can find a better place to put it, or remove the note altogether.  -- WikHead (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Already done. -- AussieLegend (✉) 02:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I assume it was in a template somewhere?  -- WikHead (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Heya,

Hey, just wanted to say hey and apologise about the Warehouse 13 (TV series) edit. I didnt realise that there was going to be an extra 7 episodes in this season, especially when it was saying that it was the season finale last night! So score! Anyways, see you around. MisterShiney (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory season 6 Cast

Hey Aussie. I was just looking at the new press release for episode 4, and there were two things I wanted your opinion on. First, this is the fifth episode (4 this season, 1 last) that Dimitri has appeared, and because of this I wanted to move him to the "Recurring cast" section instead of "Guest stars". Also, Stuart is listed as under series regular for this episode, so should a note be placed saying that this was the episode that he joined the regular cast like Mayim Bialik and Melissa Rauch, or is it too soon to tell if it will be a permanent thing? Thanks. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Kaley Cuoco Tennis

AussieLegend said:

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Kaley Cuoco. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Please note that the source in the article says that she gave up in 1992, not 2002. If you intend adding 2002 you need a reliable source that says that. AussieLegend (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

My response:

http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Kaley_Cuoco

(Very last sentence in article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shado1958 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC) "She was a nationally ranked amateur tennis player, a hobby she took up when she was three years old until she switched to acting full time with 8 Simple Rules in 2002." (at age 16-17)

Common sense should tell you that a 6 year old is too young to be a nationally ranked amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shado1958 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What you added to the article did not include a source and therefore was unsourced.[1] Wikis are not reliable sources for content added to Wikipedia. The citation that you removed is a reliable source and the content in the article was based on that. -- AussieLegend (✉) 13:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
So what makes the article cited a reliable source? You actually believe that Kaley was nationally ranked at 6 years old and gave up tennis at that point? Funny that a wiki isn't a reliable enough source to edit another wiki, LOL. Just sayin'.  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shado1958 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 October 2012‎ (UTC)
As per the link that I provided in my reply, our guideline on what constitutes a reliable source is at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia content is generally based on secondary sources. Wikis are tertiary sources. -- AussieLegend (✉) 14:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand the need to TRY and be accurate by using (supposedly) reliable sources. Thanks for the explanation. I actually hadn't been back to the Kaley Cuoco page until about 5 minutes ago, and I see that the page HAS been changed to agree with my assertions (reliable or not). I always knew it was wrong, but was having problems providing "reliable" sources. Thanks again for your time and patience.  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shado1958 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

MythBusters (2012 season)

Regarding your 07:53, 8 October 2012‎ revert[2]. It seems some episodes have aired on the Australian SBS ahead of the USA[3] and in a different order than what the US order will be. As you live in Australia, according to your user page, you may be in a better position to find a source that you do consider reliable. V (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Would this source be acceptable? If so, I propose keeping the US order for listing and numbering the episodes, but noting the Australian airdate where relevant and in addition to the US airdate. V (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Episode short summaries

Thanks. It was late when I wrote that and I didn't feel like looking something up. Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Damn autoblock.....

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
AussieLegend (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
153.107.97.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Minecraftnoob999". The reason given for Minecraftnoob999's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

Accept reason: See below Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

While I have your attention, I am the System administrator at a school and am periodically affected by these autoblocks so, as per the instructions at WP:IPBE I'd like to request IP block exemption to prevent the need for such requests in the future. Thanks. -- AussieLegend (✉) 01:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Done - I have full confidence that you won't miss-use this permission. I assume that you've raised the issue with kids vandalizing Wikipedia through the appropriate channels in your school (though I imagine that it's impossible to prevent this entirely). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Problem is that the IPs are infact proxy IP addresses which are widely used within schools, so the vandal(s) could be at a different school. Bidgee (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that but, as Bidgee has said, this address is a proxy, along with 153.107.33.156, 153.107.33.158, 153.107.33.161, 153.107.97.151, 153.107.97.152, 153.107.97.155, 153.107.97.156, 153.107.97.158, 153.107.97.161, 153.107.97.164 and probably more, used by 2,200 schools, 740,000 students and more than 30,000 staff members. -- AussieLegend (✉) 09:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Two and a Half Men season 10

Just want you to know that I have read your latest response and will respond to it soon. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I don't know if I can do that today. If I forget, remind me that it's a proposed solution. Davejohnsan (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Response coming tomorrow, I promise. Davejohnsan (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Stargate SG-1 Editing

Please don't change them back. They contain enough information within the episode summary without ruining the episode for people watching for the first time. The original edits ruined the show for me. And other people too I'm sure. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hua89 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's too bad. As I indicated on your talk page, your edits contravene WP:SPOILER. It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. If you don't want to be spoiled, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. There are plenty of fansites that avoid spoilers, although after 11 years you're likely to see spoilers on the fansites too. -- AussieLegend (✉) 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I have sent this issue to dispute resolution as I believe that in this case it ruins the show for people who have not seen them before. It is not acceptable that this is the case. It does not matter if it has been 11 years or 100 since the show has been on, as I have not seen them. I have been to the fansites and seen how they do their write-ups, and followed similar outlines. They provide enough information without ruining the show.
Perhaps if you want to provide massive amounts of information on particular episodes, then create individual pages for each episode and go nuts. That way there is BOTH a source of basic plot lines and and a repository for excess info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hua89 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing to resolve. We don't censor spoilers. Wikipedia:Spoiler says "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot". That's a position that has wide consensus. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television provides guidelines for how much content we include on episode articles and the instructions for Template:Episode list, which is the template we use in the season articles, is very specific when it says that the ShortSummary field should contain "A short 100–300 word summary of the episode", and the summaries comply with that. We always summarise the main points in an episode and the conclusion is a main point so it should be included. Sorry, but you're fighting a losing battle here. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
That may be your opinion, which I don't agree with. I have suggested that if you want to continue inserting lots of information, you have the right to create individual pages for each episode AND there can be pages for basic plot outlines. This way we both can the information available and not ruin it for other.
I'm sorry but this is still going to conflict resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hua89 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
My "opinion" is based on the policies and guidelines that we follow. I'm sorry that you refuse to agree to follow them, as other editors have to. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Your 'opinion' is in resolution dispute. You have the option of creating different pages such as this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_%28Stargate_SG-1%29 Therefore there will be both short summaries AND lots of information provided on another page. I will continue to edit episodes as I watch the series and if you revert those edits I will send them to conflict resolution. I'm sorry that you cannot see others points of view in this regard Hua89 (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in, but if you do, Hua89, you are likely to find your edits reverted by other editors. WP:Spoiler is a well-established guideline; if you want to break that guideline, you'll need to discuss the matter at the talk pages of the articles affected and get consensus there (or get consensus to change the guideline). Speaking as an administrator, AussieLegend is correct to revert any changes that he sees that remove spoilers, especially since you've stated that the reason you're making the edits is to remove spoilers. Note also that the response to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Stargate Season 1-5 All episodes endorses AussieLegend's actions—and brands persistent editing for the purpose of removing spoilers as disruptive! —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
So the solution I proposed means nothing? About having linking pages to individual episode that contain more information. Your WP:Spoiler needs reviewed then, because it is not fair to others, especially when there is a solution at hand. I shall continue to make edits as I see fit and they may be undone, at which point I shall challenge them and send them for consensus. So far my first experiences with wikipedia are very discouraging and I regret sending money to this company, I thought I believed in. Hua89 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a solution for this and I have contacted wiki management about their policy. I have also noted that there are MANY people who don't like this policy as it stands and it should be changed. TRY and see it through other people points of view and stop dismissing them as having 'no opinion and there is nothing to be resolved' because there is. Hua89 (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Stargate Season 1-5 All episodes". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 00:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nickelodeon

I have seen that you have made an edit this [4] page. Iwas wondering if you know why the page Do you know remember redirected and if there is another way to find out why. I am trying to clean up this page [5] but it is a mess. I did want to create something similar like this and this. The pages are much neater and less confusing. It would make more scene to have 2 separate pages. most television networks to have there pages set up this way.I have contacted the editor who redirected the page already though. thanksWP Editor 2012 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios from 97.85.224.28

Hey, Aussie! Just a heads up; the above IP you've warned is User:Cardinalsmyles block evading using a new IP. I've already notified the blocking admin, and will file an SPI later today. Don't expect any response to warnings or any change in behavior. This one is determined; before registering, he/she edited under another IP. --Drmargi (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

SPI is done. --Drmargi (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Dance Moms

Before I restore 'List of Dance Moms episodes' to your userspace, clarify - would you like a) the full article with history, or b) only the last diff? DS (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The full article with history is preferred. If the article is rebuilt it should include full attribution. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
User:AussieLegend/LoDMe has 338 revisions, god help you. DS (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Latest edit to Sheldon Cooper

I took the liberty of reverting your latest revert. It italicised a large portion of a sentence and presumably wasn't what you intended. Feel free to redo if you're sure, but it just looked weird to me. Regards -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I use Firefox and it all looked fine, but I just fired up Internet Explorer and it shows the rest of the paragraph italicised. Your resolution is what I intended. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

XP login

Sorry for the uploading of my Welcome screen image over the existing one. (File:XP login.png). The thing is, I was unaware that this filename was already used as the Upload form did not alert/warn me. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to check manually before uploading, and it wouldn't hurt for you to read and take notice of the advice that I gave you on your talk page about adding non-free content to articles without appropriate fair use rationales, as you keep doing to Windows XP. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Image size reduction

I noticed you reduced the size of File:XP Welcome.png - however I'm concerned. Firstly, I think it's a little TOO small now. And also, there's now no choice to view it in another resolution (ie. a larger one).

Why does it need to be small anyway? If we're gonna use it in a article, we can simply force the size to be more appropriate, like 300px or 250px. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have pointed out on your talk page, apparently in vain, our non-free content policy requires that we use low resolution images. Also as I pointed out, we shouldn't force resolutions unless there is good reason. Thumbnails in articles default to 220px unless the editor has set a different resolution. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Are We There Yet? episodes

The dates you put are wrong. These are the upcoming episodes they haven't aired yet: http://www.tbs.com/stories/story/0,,218053,00.html The last episode to air was "The Life Insurance Episode". 74.73.232.178 (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That list includes a number of episodes that have already aired, not just new episodes, so it isn't a good guide for first aired dates. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The point?

Hi.

Hope I'm not bothering you but I had a question: Although I don't exactly disagree with this edit, but I'm curious, what is the "whole point of including the image" that is "completely removed"?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not bothering me at all. It's good to see that someone else is checking out the edits. As well as just identifying the taskbar, the image demonstrates the task grouping feature introduced in Windows XP showing both grouped and individual items, and this is reflected in the caption, which was changed from "The "task grouping" feature introduced in Windows XP showing both grouped and individual items" to simply "The Windows XP taskbar". --AussieLegend (✉) 04:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Why did you change the taskbar image from 800px center back? It actually looks good that way, as almost every button is shown detailed, and hey, it's a wide but low image, so where's the problem? And FYI, Windows 7 already has that and can't see anything wrong with it. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The answer to your question is already explained above, and in the edit summary linked to. It doesn't need to be 800px wide. Our image use policy recommends keeping images below 300px. If readers want to see the image at a higher resolution, they can click on it. That the Windows 7 article uses a higher resolution is irrelevant. Articles convey information in prose form, with images assisting the descriptions. They are not image farms. On a separate, but related note, Windows 7 only has 6 images, including the infobox. Prior to you adding ten more images, Windows XP had nine images, more than Windows 7. It now has far too many. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, firstly keeping images below 300px is, as you said, recommended, NOT necessary. Secondly, keeping that image centered/800px makes the article look good (like a panorama vision), and makes readers avoid to click on the image and then again just to see it at the highest resolution. Thirdly, most images I put in the XP article were not used in ANY article, so there's a very good reason for it to be here - also note that I put most of my images in the Gallery, not the general article. I can do the same to Windows 7 and any other article (ie. add more (useful) images).--Gaming&Computing (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
It's recommended for good reason. We need to ensure that images don't sandwich text and make pages difficult to read for editors using lower resolutions (such as mobile users) and vision impaired readers, as well as other reasons. Images should not overwhelm the text. In fact it's only lead images that are generally up to 300px. Unless there is GOOD reason (making things look pretty is NOT a good reason) we don't force image sizes, instead allowing them to be the default 220px wide, and there is nothing to be gained by making the taskbar image 800px wide. Making readers avoid clicking on images is not a reason for making the image larger either. It's not a practice that we follow anywere. You might notice that Windows 7 doesn't have a series of images like the XP article, which is why the taskbar image is on its own. As for the images not being used "in ANY article" is absolute rubbish. All of the images ARE used in articles for which they have a FUR:
Your claim that none of these files are used makes no sense, especially given that you're well aware that at least one (File:XP login.png) most definitely is used, as you've acknowledged that in the section immediately following this one,[6] and you'll see from the discussion at Talk:Windows XP do not support your arguments. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops. My bad! I had NO idea they were used in those articles. Sorry about that. But BTW, I said that MOST of these images were not used. I was already aware that File:Windows Media Center on Windows XP.png was used in the XP MCE article. But all these images are part of XP, so I think they should also belong to the XP article. For example, Explorer was improved and Control Panel had a new category view, so we can simply put it in the 'New and updated features' section. What's wrong with that? --Gaming&Computing (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
"Most" is still incorrect. Of the 9 images that you added, 7 (i.e. most) were used in articles. The problem with adding File:Windows Media Center on Windows XP.png is the same problem that has existed all along and which you continue to ignore - it does not have an appropriate non-free use rationale for Windows XP and therefore cannot be used. This has been explained at length on your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

New version of AWB

An updated version of AWB is now available here. Cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi. Can you please help me? I am just very confused about the non-free rationale and FURs. File:XP Control Panel.PNG and File:XP Welcome.png have these warnings. If possible, would you assist me to make a proper FUR/rationale? I read those WP help articles and I'm still confused!

BTW, File:XP Welcome.png is not used in any articles now you removed it, and will get deleted in a few days. I've restored that on the XP article for good reason: It's the NEW Welcome screen, which is a NEW feature, so should be in the New and updated features section! --Gaming&Computing (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sydney Opera House

You recently issued a warning ("uw-unsourced2"), to User:HubbleConstant, regarding an edit to Sydney Opera House. Their addition included the words "an interview, published in the Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary in June 1978", "a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983", "Ava Hubble's book, More Than An Opera House (Lansdowne Press 1983)" and "Letters written by Utzon and his daughter.. in the NSW State Library's Utzon collection", any or all of which may be reliable sources. Please treat good-faith edits by new editors with more consideration, and adopt a more welcoming approach. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The section deals with the reconciliation with Jørn Utzon in the lead-up to the redesign of the interior that commenced at the beginning of the millenium, not the failed attempts at reconciliation many years before. That's why the section is titled "Reconciliation with Utzon", not "Faled attempts at reconciliation with Utzon" - the reconciliation with Utzon was a major milestone in the life and redesign of the interior spaces of the building. I gave HubbleConstant a warning because he had made contentious edits, including a wholesale deletion of the section,[7] and had not received warnings for them, and then made this edit without providing any source for the change, which was clearly incorrect given the context that I've described. Your restoration of his edits have now broken the section by reinserting his text in the middle of the section, resulting in this change. removing "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust a" from "Beginning in the late 1990s, the Sydney Opera House Trust began to communicate with Jørn Utzon in an attempt to effect a reconciliation and to secure his involvement in future changes to the building. In 1999, he was appointed by the Trust as a design consultant for future work." --AussieLegend (✉) 10:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The warning you issued was unambiguously, and inappropriately, about unsourced content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
As i very clearly indicated above, this edit was unsourced. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
As I very clearly indicated above, it was sourced in the same editor's previous addition. Though that had been reverted, it's unlikely that new editor would understand this. I invite you to consider my request that you adopt a more welcoming approach to new editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't sourced in THAT edit, which is what is important. Now, should we start on you restoring edits that break articles without checking to make sure that you haven't left the article in a broken state? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

The NBA WikiProject Barnstar
For replacing all instances of {{NBA historical player}}.—Bagumba (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Narrabri

I'm no expert, but as Natalie Ritter is unlinked, and a google search only returns Facebook pages, I suspect she may not be the greatest golfer of all time. Given it was your edit prior to this, and having seen all the anti-vandalism banners on your page, I hope you won't mind me leaving you to deal with this. Plus I'm at work. Matt Adore (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

An apology

I apologize for this edit. It was rude of me to revert your edit without an explanation. I didn't intend to rollback your edit, there was nothing wrong with it. I think I accidentally hit rollback when I was reviewing my watchlist on my iPad and missed what I did. Sometimes scrolling on a touch screen gets interpreted as a click and I think that is what happened. I'll try to be more careful about this in the future. Geraldo Perez (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology but stuff happens, don't worry about it. Let's just blame Apple. :) --AussieLegend (✉) 11:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Proceeding with Template:TV.com

So, I'm kind of stuck on some bureaucratic stuff right now:

  • A year and a half ago somebody put up a call to delete the TV.com family of templates under the argument they didn't meet WP:EL. The result of that discussion was no consensus, but as a side effect it was brought to light that Template:Tv.com show was redundant to Template:Tv.com (at the time), so Template:Tv.com show was deleted (redirecting to Template:Tv.com).
  • A few months ago, TV.com changed the way their site's URL organization worked. The old page names, which identified each show with an ID number and linked to a "summary.html" page, were changed to redirect to new pages, where show pages are under a different path, identified by name (with non-alphanumeric characters replaced with hyphens). All show pages created after this change are only available through the new URL format, while all show pages created before are available through the new format as well.
  • After this change, there was some discussion on Template talk:Tv.com about what to do (the new format for shows is not compatible with the format used for Template:TV.com, but no solution had been implemented since the initial discussion. Following WP:BOLD, I created a new template at Template:Tv.com show (since that name/usage matches the other templates of this kind, like Template:IMDb title or Template:Tv.com episode), to link to shows using the new format, and updated the deprecation notice at the top of the documentation for Template:Tv.com. My idea was that, in this fashion, pages transcluding Template:Tv.com could be updated at leisure without breaking anything, and if at some point all uses of Template:Tv.com were updated, it could be retired.
  • On November 27, User:Koafv posted a TfD to delete Template:Tv.com, apparently interpreting the deprecation notice at the top to mean the template was "unused" (as I pointed out a few comments later, it's very heavily used).
  • After the TfD was posted, I created a WP:BRFA request for a bot I would write to make Template:Tv.com unused in favor of its replacement Template:Tv.com show. (At this point, the bot has been written and run, I would just need the bot flag to apply the edits.)
  • Meanwhile, a number of users (from what I can tell, without familiarizing themselves with anything prior) started tossing on "Delete without replacement" comments on the basis that Tv.com should not be allowed under WP:EL (again), and the discussion has now become heavily muddled and confused.
  • The BRFA I posted to fix the initial issue has now been put on hold as a result of this quagmire.

I just want to fix one thing at a time here. Is there anything that can be done, so I can just do the automated replacement (which isn't really contentious), then we can bring back the whole discussion of whether Tv.com is good enough for WP:EL? --STUART (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It truly is a ridiculous situation. As you're aware, I've been trying to point out the flaws in the amended nomination and the delete votes, but clearly people aren't listening.[8] I've made comment at the BRFA,[9] but I'm not sure what else to do. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox basketball biography

I saw that you reverted your attempt to remove use of Template:NBA player from Template:Infobox basketball biography, saying it "doesn't work on all articles". What were some of the problems you experienced. I did some similar testing in my sandbox, and I did not notice any problems. Perhaps you can share your observations. and we can resolve them.—Bagumba (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

For the life of me, I can't remember what the problem was. I was sure it was caused when profile was set to something different than the player's name, but it seems to be working now on the version in the sandbox. Maybe it was a caching problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:basketball-reference

I appreciate your effort to migrate the deprecated basketball templates. In your edit for Adonal Foyle, there are now two separate external link entries for the link to nba.com and the link to basketball-reference.com. The intent of {{basketballstats}} was to list all stats on one single line, not to use two separate instances of {{basketballstats}} on a page. I'm not sure if AWB is sophisticated enough to handle this (which is why I had held off using it). I suppose you could continue this blind substitution so that {{basketball-reference}} can be deleted, but your effort would still leave for a non-optimal article. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of the results are optimal but something needs to be done. Using {{basketballstats}} for NBA entries but not for basketball-reference.com is not ideal and neither is having the same template used twice, but, at least if {{basketball-reference}} is replaced, it's a fairly simple process to combine the two versions of the template as they are identified. That said, {{basketballstats}} isn't a direct replacement for {{basketball-reference}}; it can't be easily substituted in articles that use {{basketball-reference}} with no parameters so many uses will remain until somebody fixes them all manually. The templates were first nominated for deletion in June and concern was expressed about the problems replacing them, but nobody apparently did anything in the ensuing 5 months and then I was able to replace {{NBA historical player}} in short order with none of the problems that people were concerned about. In the two days since the TfDs were closed I've now replaced over 600 transclusions of {{NBA player}}. Replacing {{basketball-reference}} seems the next step and even if two copies of the same template are used in a few articles, at least it will start the process of replacing the template and make it easier to identify those articles where changes will have to be made manually. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I find a lot of time is spent opening articles and saving them, so it was just a thought to combine the two entries manually while editing the in AWB. I'm fine with whatever you decide.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Do I hear quacking?

Pretty obvious to me as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A Thank you

As creator of the Article MY Sam Simon, I thank you for your contributions to the article, you have changed my ways of editing and the ways of others (In a good way!) and you have made the article possible. Wikipedia needs more people like you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBASH607 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you've been able to gain something positive form my edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Steven D._Binder".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Tv.com ELN

Hi, AussieLegend. I'm contacting you because you commented at the Tv.com TFD, which I decided to withdraw for the moment. I subsequently made a report about Tv.com at WP:ELN. Please feel free to comment at the new discussion: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Tv.com. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Top Gear

GAWD, I wish IP's would use an edit summary. That Top Gear episode you and I both added back is a fake. I cleared it all out, but that annoys the spit out of me. --Drmargi (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the edit summaries but the episode isn't a fake per se, it's a "Best of Top Gear" episode that aired. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
That's very possible; those do get added from time to time. There are a bunch running in the U.S. right now, but they're a little newer. --Drmargi (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

tv.com

your recent edits like this one are not helpful, since you have replaced a working link with a broken one. the tv.com show template uses a different format and cannot be replaced this easily. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The link works fine, {{tv.com show}} was modified so that it was fully compatible with {{tv.com}}.[10] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
as far as I can tell, that is a temporary hack which will be removed once Category:Tv.com show template using numeric id is cleared. otherwise the edit summary would not have called it "transitional code". 174.56.57.138 (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Most of the numeric links still work fine so there's no need to replace them and doing so is really unnecessary. It was just an oversight that {{tv.com show}} was never made backward compatible with {{tv.com}} before nominating it for deletion. Now that it is, we can convert articles immediately and delete {{tv.com}}. Converting all articles that currently use {{tv.com}} allows us to identify those articles using the numeric code. Without converting them it's a lot harder to identify them. You're correct, it was called transitional code but that doesn't mean it has to be removed, and even if it was going to be eventually removed, this is a long time off as it's going to take a long time to convert articles because there are thousands of them. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Tracking category

Please don't make this change. I added that tracking category as a temporary measure, and I am going to remove the transitional code shortly. The entire point of the conversion exercise is to actually fix the links, not just change "tv.com" to "tv.com show". As I mentioned on PS talk page, there are problems when the name of the show is purely numeric, so the transitional code has to be removed. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that your code had made the template backward compatible with {{tv.com}}. As I explained, it's only new shows that don't get numeric codes. All of the numeric code links still work. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
in the best case, your edits are pointless, since if it were true that the code were entirely backwards compatible, we could just redirect one to the other. however, as I stated several times now, the new code fails for shows with purely numeric titles. I have updated the documentation in the tracking category to make this clear. it was a temporary hack, which was doomed to fail for purely numeric titles. I have now removed the transitional code, since it was just a temporary fix. if you want to try to modify {{tv.com show}} to make it completely backwards compatible, then you will need to have a list of all the possible purely numeric show titles. every time there is a new one, you would have to update the template. this seems like a very bad idea, but feel free to suggest it on the talk page. Frietjes (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Well yes, if it was fully backward compatible then we could redirect it but at the time the TfD closed it wasn't, and the outcome of the TfD was delete, not redirect, so redirecting it wouldn't be consistent with that. Surely it wouldn't have been too hard to introduce a parameter such as id so that when a numeric code is present the link remains the same as it did for {{tv.com}}. {{Tv.com}} didn't need a list of all the possible purely numeric show titles, and it worked fine, even for 106 & Park, which had a numeric code of 12982. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Gibbs Rules

Why not have a List of Gibbs Rules? Most viewers of the program would love to have a complete list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.109.226 (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's non-notable trivia that is fine on a fan site but which has no place in an encyclopaedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:MY-Sam-Simon

Is it OK if I simply remove the image from Wikipedia? PBASH607 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been deleted by an admin. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:MichaelKelsoFinale.jpg

This infobox image seems to be replaceable by free images that may be used as body images, like File:Ashton Kutcher 2008-09-08.jpg. I wonder if you can approve deletion of this image. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've made comment about possible replacements. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there any other non-free version to replace this image? I've done so on the Nintendo DS version of Final Fantasy III by replacing Japanese cover art with North American one. I would like to discuss it in WP:NFCR, but I could not keep that discussion any longer. Instead, if no alternatives can help improve, I can nominate it for deletion if you don't object my nominating it. --George Ho (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The "profile" photo from Twitter is more significant. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is agood shot of the character. While it deals with cast photos, you may be interested to read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 57#Cast photos, as it is still relevant here. We need to have an image that carries implicit information that can help understand the character or display something about the character that can't be conveyed in text, rather than simply "just" an image of the character. --AussieLegend (✉)

Readding your question at WT:NFC

I know you said you were abandoning the article (judging by the history there seems to be editors set in the ways, and I can see why), but the question of, in general, the use of cast photos in TV show articles, is completely fair to ask and determine, even if you're not interested in the specific image in question. I've undo that last edit at WT:NFC so as to allow discussion, but feel free to continue on without participation (I'll make a note in my response about restoring it.) --MASEM (t) 5:25 pm, 24 December 2012, last Monday (7 days ago) (UTC+11)

Kickwhoozit

Well, that was fun. Happy Boxing Day! --Drmargi (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it was. :) --AussieLegend (✉) 08:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I think this is good old User:Roman888. Did you have any history with him? It might also be the guy who flipped out on the Hotel Hell article one day, but the writing style doesn't match. --Drmargi (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall him. I just hope it was my AIV report that did the trick. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure it was. That you haven't dealt with him is the biggest reason I'm not completely sure it's him. --Drmargi (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Signature

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your signature is a little too big vertically. See User_talk:Titodutta/Archive_21#Signing. As I mentioned in the referenced talk page, it is not a big problem, but one that should be remedied. Also, your signature uses <font> tags instead of <span> tags. Font tags are depreciated in HTML4 and HTML5. It will one day, whenever that is, be obsolete and not rendered. This is not a big deal, but should be fixed at somepoint. Bgwhite (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's "not a big problem", how can it be "a little too big"? ;) (You must have seen that coming.) Oh well, something more mundane then. Thanks for the heads-up. I had just copied someone elses, and it wasn't Titodutta. Cheers. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Still 2012 here (for some while yet) but happy 2013 where you are! Hope you're celebrating! --Drmargi (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd really love to tell you what I'm doing but it's never a good idea to tell people living in the past about future events. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Coincidentally, I'm watching the episode of Doctor Who where he first meets River Song. Fitting! --Drmargi (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

AvidInsight, DreamFieldArts, etc

I think you may be interested to know that DreamFieldArts, also known as AvidInsight among various other alias is back and has been editing for the past several months since April. Although the SPI case hasn't been finalised yet, I am beyond convinced that Obtund is the same user as DreamFieldArts. Just wanted to let you know since you were the one who caught the other socks. Here's the link in case you're interested. 1YuMaNuMa Contrib 15:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't think to change it.

Whoops! I did not know if it had the right dates or not. Might as well had changed it. Sorry!

Matthew9543 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinion on The Big Bang Theory talk page - RfC section

Hi Aussie, may you please bolden or italicize the opinion you had for the correct version of the lead you stated in the RfC section (or at least make it stand out)? I would like to reference that and would like an easy way to point to it, and feel other users might agree or reference it as well. I did not want to edit your formatting or do anything to it without your permission. Thanks. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope this is better. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Fine. Thank you very much. To me, and hopefully other editors, it will stand out easier and be easier to find. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Show vs. Series

I don't necessarily agree with the statement you wrote: "Show" is fine for Broadway, but not for a television series. You can have more than just Broadway shows, you can also have television shows. Personally, I prefer "show" to "series" because it's a shorter word (1 syllable vs. 2 syllables), but for now, in order to limit the scope of the dispute, I'll go along with series. We'll leave the show/series dispute to another day. However whatever (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Show" is informal, "series is formal". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and uses a formal tone, per WP:TONE. If you look at "television series", you'll see that it uses "series", not "show". Using "show" is the same as using "mom" and "dad" instead of "mother" and "father". --AussieLegend (✉) 04:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Fine -- I'll go along with that. However whatever (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How ya goin'?

I'm sure you're watching here so if you have input or feedback on possible unblock, let me know. Thanks Tiderolls 14:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've been tied up with other issues (it's the Wikipedia silly season apparently) so I haven't been watching this as I could see it was in good hands. However, I've now read all of the comments. I don't really have much to add at this point; my main issues were with the lack of edit summaries, the refusal to use the talk page and lack of response to other editors - these all seem to be addressed by you and other admins. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Old friends

I can't believe that little toe-rag is back, and that 50.81 is blocked, and socking, again. How'd I miss that? --Drmargi (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

50.81's account is very close to being blocked again. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, dear. We've tried for over a year to get through to her. I've seen her account and IP pages, but haven't read any of it yet. --Drmargi (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, so much for that. TR blocked her after she went back to editing with no sources. --Drmargi (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, that just goes to show what happens when you refuse to listen and just go on your own merry way. Maybe TR should head over to The Big Bang Theory. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's a matter of won't listen. I think it's can't follow directions. Trust me; I've seen it professionally more times than I can count. Do I dare ask what's happening at BBT? (N'mind. I took a peek and recognize several of the cast of characters. 'Nuff said, and good luck!) --Drmargi (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

New South Welsh

Aren't you the same user who said that just because the Premier, the head of State Government in New South Wales, isn't natural-born Australian that somehow makes her not a credible source on things regarding NSW? That's like saying Julia Gillard isn't credible on anything national in Australia just because she was born in the UK, or myself saying the same about our former GG and Canadian things because she was born in Haiti. Why should I give a source to someone with such a delightful (there's a better word I can think of) outlook that he rejected a perfectly valid one over the birthplace of his politician(s)?

But here are some other sources of the usage of the term "New South Welsh":

  • [11]
  • [12]
  • [13] (Page 3)
  • [14] (proof of historical use rather than just current "political correctness" regarding gender)
  • [15]
  • [16] (proof of Government use)
  • [17]
  • [18] (page 2)
  • [19] (page 19)

And I really could keep going. There is also extremely widespread usage of "New South Welsh" in personal blogs and NGO websites. Now would you be so kind to provide me a source claiming "New South Welshman" is the only official and acceptable term and anybody using anything else is wrong and it has absolutely no place on Wikipedia? Or should I just open a dispute resolution board and post the fact that I have historical evidence dating back to 1860 of the usage of "New South Welsh" and let the community agree and enforce? Fry1989 eh? 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Chalk and cheese. The NSW Premier was an American who had a distinct American accent, despite attempts to hide it, and had only been in Australia for a relatively short time. Coming from a different culture you'd expect her to speak differently. Americans say "eemoo" but that doesn't mean that's the way we pronounce "emu" here. Julia Gillard's lack of credibility because she's sounds like a bogan, it has nothing to do with where she was born. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Fine, if you want ignore the requested sources I have provided, as well as ignore my request for a counter-source on the exclusivity of "New South Welshman", but rather continue this irrelevant "where were they born? how do they speak? thing, dispute resolution board it is. Fry1989 eh? 19:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "New South Wales".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Because of the shortsightedness of Dispute Resolution, this issue has been moved to Administrator's Noticeboard. Fry1989 eh? 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Shortsightedness has nothing to do with it. DRN requires substantial discussion on the article's talk page prior to opening a discussion, and that hasn't happened. The last discussion was in 2006. Taking the issue to WP:AN, where it was also rejected, is forum shopping. I see that it has now gone to ANI, where your actions are being discussed. Good luck. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Date formats

I've noticed that you sometimes completely change the predominant style of date formats in the references [20] [21] These formats were acceptable and did not need changing; please see WP:DATERET and WP:MOSDATE. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the first example you'll see that I was restoring the format after another editor had completely changed them. That same editor had also made changes that were not compliant with MOS:ACCESS and MOS:DTT. The changes made were consistent with the {{use mdy dates}} template that was persent in the article. The widely used script that I use to change dates doesn't allow for selective date changing so that some dates in the body are mdy while athers are in the difficult to read ISO format. As for the second, July 2012? Really? Are you wikistalking? ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 14:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I know what you said in the edit summary of the first edit, but if you look at the history of the article, the format you removed was the predominant format of the article for years. Same with the second article, as far as I can recall. The "use mdy" template does not mean that every date in the article must be in mdy format; it doesn't really mean anything about yyyy-mm-dd formats. The person maintaining the "widely used script" you mention can confirm this. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm well aware that {{use mdy dates}} doesn't apply to all dates, only those in the body. However, while the refs may appear in the references section, they are physically located in the body. I'm generally not anal enough to go back through an article that's several years old looking to see which date format is the predominant one, if I see a date format template I assume good faith and format accordingly. A lot of the articles that I edit have strange and inconsistent date formatting; the tool fixes that. A check through Selena Gomez's history shows that the date format originally used in the article in September 2006 was mdy, so the use of mdy dates complies with WP:DATERET in that "the date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used". As far as I can see there was no consensus to change this. Dates were not added to references in the article until much later, in June 2008, and when they were, mdy was used.[22] It wasn't until August 2008 when "somebody else" decided to go against the format used in the article and started using ISO dates,[23] despite there being no iso dates in the article for its first 643 days and 2,304 revisions of the article. I assume iso dates were used because the citation templates used to autoformat but, when we stopped date linking, the dates should have been changed to mdy, not just unlinked so as to comply with WP:DATERET. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the early formatted references in that article used accessdates in yyyy-mm-dd format, and there is nothing wrong with that. That format continued for years until you changed it. And yes, it appears that I may very well have been the person to first format references in that article ;) Gimmetoo (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Because the citation template used date linking, the dates would have appeared according to the preferences set by the editor, which is compliant with DATERET, at least for editors who set US preferences. However, they would have appeared as iso dates to non-logged-in readers, which is not compliant, or rather not in the spirit of compliance. I used to use iso dates without realising the consequences. They're great for computers, but not people. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, there is nothing wrong with using yyyy-mm-dd formats for the accessdates, and having those formats visible to readers. MOSDATE expliclty authorises that style. I also don't understand your statement "citation template used date linking", because, as far as I can tell, dates were not linked in the citations, either now, nor in formatted citaitons in links you provide from 2008t, either the accessdates or publication dates, or in either dmy, mdy or yyyy-mm-dd formats. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
True, there is nothing wrong with yyyy-mm-dd formats but WP:DATERET, which you referred to in your first post, does not provide an exemption that allows you to change from the predominant format just because you're using citations. {{Cite web}} used date linking when you first used iso dates in the article. It was removed later.[24][25] I mistakenly thought you used the template instead of using the long method. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The dates in the article body, the publication dates, and the accessdates are all treated separately, and may be in different formats. There was no predominant date format for the accessdates until they were added. And that should be fine with the 2013 form of DATERET, let alone what the guideline said back then. In any event, the article developed from there for four years to the point it had over 100 references; then you changed their style to something else. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Hoho! Yet another editor has been bitten by Gimmetoo's obsession to whip anyone who dares to turn an ISO date into dmy or mdy. Once a single allegedly non-compliant edit by a user was found, it was sufficient grounds to start ferreting into the editors' contribution history to find other instances. So no surprises that Gimme found one. I'm really sorry <forgive my sarcasm> Gimme had to go back five months to find one, though, as this shows the true colours and magnitude of that obsession. No, there's nothing wrong with either dmy, mdy or yyyy-mm-dd date; what's cuckoo is that anal obsession and the hounding that follows. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
DATERET doesn't treat the dates differently. It has one rule for all. At the time you added ISO dates, the predominant format for body and publication dates was the US date format. It stands to reason that accessdates should use the same format. The article developed for two years and 2,300 revisions and then you changed the predominant style to something else. I really don't understand your obsession with ISO dates. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice attempt to dodge the issue. You changed the predominant style of an article that had developed for years and had over 100 references. Why did you decide to remove yyyy-mm-dd style formats from an article that had had them, quite stably, for years? Gimmetoo (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, nice attempt yourself. No, it was you who changed the predominant style 2 years after the article was created. Until then only US date formats were used throughouth the article. Why did you decide to add yyyy-mm-dd style formats to the article when the article predominantly used US date formats? That your change may have been present in the article for some time after that is irrelevant; the article originally only used US formats. I have explained why I changed the formats back to the US format above. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The point of DATERET is to retain the existing format - key point being retain. You did not retain the existing and acceptable format. You changed the format by removing acceptable and authorized formats. Changing is fundamentally different than adding a new type of content in an acceptable format, and that's even now, under the current version of MOSDATE, to say nothing of what was going on years ago. But that's not what you did - you changed the existing style, despite the existing style - a atyle currently authorized by the MOSDATE guideline - being there stably for years. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that you read WP:DATERET, because you seem to be missing/ignoring what it says: "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk." It then goes on to say "Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor". The first person to insert a date in the article was the person who created the article, and he used US dates. Therefore, according to DATERET, the date format that should be used is the US date format. Even if "strong national ties" came into the picture, US date formats would still prevail, and there is no "consensus on article talk" that supports use of ISO dates. Contrary to what you appear to believe, the article didn't start evolving when you arbitrarily decided on ISO dates, it started evolving when the article was created and in the first 643 days of its life prior to you editing, in the 2,304 edits in that time it evolved without a single ISO date in sight. DATERET says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it". The predominant format in the first 643 days of the article's evolution was US format, so that's what the article should use according to DATERET. You should have retained US formats when you edited the article and not arbitrarily changed. You still haven't explained your obsession with ISO dates. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
What you studiously fail to address is that you changed the format as it existed. But I will address your interpreation of dateret once more time, under the expectation that you will address your own behaviour. Now, articles have routinely had different formats for publication dates, access dates, and body dates for years. There is nothing wrong with that. It is even expclitly allowed by MOSDATE as it currently exists in 2013. If you wish to apply the 2013 form of MOSNUM back to 2008, then you will note that at the time of the edit you linked, most dates were not in an allowed format - the body dates, in particular. If you wish to get deailed, they were not even consistent. So, In the process of editing the article, someone made an edit that put the date formats in an acceptable format, following the existing publication date format (it was in an allowed format), including adding access dates which did not exist in the article at that point. That style was (for the most part) followed for the next four years, as the article developed considerably, including over 100 references. If you wish to argue that that edit years ago, formatting the references, adding info and fixing other things in the article, was wrong, then a fortiori it was wrong for someone else to arbitrarily change the format four years later. If it was not wrong to arbitrarily change the format four years later, then logically, anyone else can change the format at any time, which is clearly not what DATERET means. Furthermore, WP:DATERET specificaly (and expclitly) rules out "strong national ties" as a reason for removing yyyy-mm-dd formats, so that cannot be a reason. Now, you need to address the primary issue of your edit. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "you changed the format as it existed" - No, you did that back in 2008. No ISO dates existed in the article at that time. You should have continued to use the date format that was in existence in the article at that time.
  • "articles have routinely had different formats for publication dates, access dates, and body dates for years" - Articles have routinely contained flaws, vandalism inconsistencies and other errors for that time. What is your argument, that nothing should be fixed just because it's been that way because it's been the case for so long?
  • "you will note that at the time of the edit you linked, most dates were not in an allowed format" - That appears to be completely incorrect. The only things "wrong" with the version prior to your edit was that dates were linked, which was the case with a lot of articles at that time, and one date (July, 2008) included a comma, which is a minor typo. That's not a justification for changing the predominant format.
  • "That style was (for the most part) followed for the next four years, as the article developed considerably, including over 100 references" - That somebody continues to make errors, caused by your initial change, doesn't make it right. Certainly "for the most part" is incorrect. The 2008 version of the article established the US date format for publication dates but at some point, probably here the predominant format for publication dates was abitrarily changed to ISO.
  • "it was wrong for someone else to arbitrarily change the format four years later" - As I have already explained, the change was NOT abitrary. The change was made based on the {{Use mdy dates}} template that was in the article. It also restored the predominant format for publication dates that should never have been arbitrarily changed.
  • "Furthermore, WP:DATERET specificaly (and expclitly) rules out "strong national ties" as a reason for removing yyyy-mm-dd formats," - DATERET says nothing of the sort. DATERET doesn't even mention ISO dates. What it does say is "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk" and "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk." Again, please read WP:DATERET as I asked in my last post. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You have again failed to address in any way your own behaviour. That you liken having publication dates in one format and accessdates in another format - a style expliclty authroized by MOSDATE - to flawa, vandalism and errors, is indicative. I did make one mistake - it is WP:STRONGNAT rather than WP:DATERET which specifilly rules out "national ties" as a reason for removing yyyy-mm-dd formatted dates. Your change was arbitraty. You have now been infomred of the issues. Please do not arbitrariy change date formats again. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I have explained my actions at length. That it is not to your satisfaction is too bad. WP:STRONGNAT does not "specificaly [sic] (and expclitly [sic] ) rule out "strong national ties" as a reason for removing yyyy-mm-dd formats". It merely says "YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in references or in tables, even in articles with national ties, if otherwise acceptable". The key words here are "may" and "if otherwise acceptable". --AussieLegend (✉) 14:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, they may be used, as in they are permitted to be used even in the face of "strong national ties". That section exists because some editors were claiming "strong national ties" as a reason for removing yyyy-mm-dd formats from well-developed articles. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
          • That's not what STRONGNAT says. You're interpreting "may" to mean something that is not even close to its dictionary definition. In any case, this is not even relevant to he discussion, which seems to have headed a long way off-track. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Gimmetoo, this obsession is going too far. Sometimes you give the impression of stalking and harassment. Can you tone it down, please, and give experienced editors a little more respect? Tony (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I opened a discussion with you rarther than plopping down the template text on the issue. The basic rule is when an article has an established style, don't change it. After this discussion, do you disagree with that? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I never disagreed with that. Do you? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AussieLegend/Archive_14&oldid=1144120685"