Jump to content

User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Wizards of Waverly Place: Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie

Dear AussieLegend,

Earlier today, you moved Wizards of Waverly Place: Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie back to Wizards of Waverly Place (soundtrack) over a redirect.  You did so on the following grounds: "ridiculously long title that vilates MOS:CAPS and MOS:&".

First, I do not believe the albums full title is "ridiculously long."  But, I acknowledge that longness is subjective, and that, in your mind, its full title may actually be "ridiculously long."  Suffice it to say, we disagree.

The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade is a long title.

Don't Get Too Comfortable: The Indignities of Coach Class, The Torments of Low Thread Count, The Never-Ending Quest for Artisanal Olive Oil, and Other First World Problems is another long title.

And Noisy Outlaws, Unfriendly Blobs, and Some Other Things That Aren't as Scary, Maybe, Depending on How You Feel About Lost Lands, Stray Cellphones, Creatures from the Sky, Parents Who Disappear in Peru, a Man Named Lars Farf, and One Other Story We Couldn't Quite Finish, So Maybe You Could Help Us Out is a really long title.

But those aren't album titles.  This one is, and, boy, is it long: When the Pawn Hits the Conflicts He Thinks like a King What He Knows Throws the Blows When He Goes to the Fight and He'll Win the Whole Thing 'fore He Enters the Ring There's No Body to Batter When Your Mind Is Your Might so When You Go Solo, You Hold Your Own Hand and Remember That Depth Is the Greatest of Heights and If You Know Where You Stand, Then You Know Where to Land and If You Fall It Won't Matter, Cuz You'll Know That You're Right.

When that album came out in 1999, it held the record for being the longest title for a major label album.  Then, this one came out in 2007 with an even longer title: Most of the remixes we've made for other people over the years except for the one for Einstürzende Neubauten because we lost it and a few we didn't think sounded good enough or just didn't fit in length-wise, but including some that are hard to find because either people forgot about them or simply because they haven't been released yet, a few we really love, one we think is just ok, some we did for free, some we did for money, some for ourselves without permission and some for friends as swaps but never on time and always at our studio in Ghent.  Now, even that title has been surpassed.

Currently, the longest album title released by a major label is, The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won, If We Allow Our Culture to Be Shaped by Mimicry, Whether from Lack of Ideas or from Exaggerated Respect. You Should Never Try to Freeze Culture. What You Can Do Is Recycle That Culture. Take Your Older Brother's Hand-Me-Down Jacket and Re-Style It, Re-Fashion It to the Point Where It Becomes Your Own. But Don't Just Regurgitate Creative History, or Hold Art and Music and Literature as Fixed, Untouchable and Kept Under Glass. The People Who Try to 'Guard' Any Particular Form of Music Are, Like the Copyists and Manufactured Bands, Doing It the Worst Disservice, Because the Only Thing That You Can Do to Music That Will Damage It Is Not Change It, Not Make It Your Own. Because Then It Dies, Then It's Over, Then It's Done, and the Boy Bands Have Won.  Now that might just be a ridiculously long title.

All things considered, I think Wizards of Waverly Place: Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie is within the bounds of reason.

Second, you say that the title violates MOS:CAPS, but if you were to actually read that page fully, you'd have realised that the title does not violate MOS:CAPS.

I will admit that if this were a mere section header, or the title of an article that was not itself the title of some work, then it would violate MOS:CAPS.  But, clearly it's not.  It's the title of an album.  If you go to MOS:CAPS and scroll down, you will come to MOS:CT, and you will find that I have titled this composition correctly.  Here's what it says about composition titles:

The words that are not capitalized (unless they are the first or last word of the title) are:

  • Articles (a, an, the)
  • Short coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, nor ; also for, yet, so when used as conjunctions)
  • Prepositions containing four letters or fewer (of, to, in, on, for, with, from, etc.; but see below for instances where these words are not used as prepositions)
  • The word to in infinitives.

The following words should be capitalized:

  • The first and last word of the title
  • Every adjective, adverb, noun, pronoun and subordinating conjunction (Me, It, His, If, etc.)
  • Every verb, including forms of to be (Be, Am, Is, Are, Was, Were, Been)
  • Prepositions that contain five letters or more (During, Through, About, Until, Below etc.)
  • Words that have the same form as prepositions, but are not being used specifically as prepositions

Just in case there is any ambiguity as to whether album titles should be capitalised with the same conventions as composition titles, see WP:BANDNAME, which says,

Capitalization of song titles and album titles should be consistent with the guidelines for composition titles; in particular, capitalize the first and last word and all other words except:

  • coordinating conjunctions (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so)
  • prepositions shorter than five letters (in, to, over)
  • articles (an, a, the)
  • the word to when used to form an infinitive.

    • Note that short verbs (Is, Are, and Do) and pronouns (Me, It, and His) are capitalized.

    Clearly, I did not violate MOS:CAPS.

    Third, you say that the title violates MOS:&, but if you were to actually read that paragraph fully, you'd have realised that the title does not violate MOS:&.  Here's what that paragraph says:

    In normal text and headings, the word and should be used instead of the ampersand (&); for example January 1 and 2, not January 1 & 2. Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations, such as Up & Down or AT&T. Ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion in places where space is extremely limited (i.e. tables and infoboxes). Quotations (see also MOS:QUOTE) may be cautiously modified, especially for consistency where different editions are quoted, as modern editions of old texts routinely replace ampersands with and (just as they replace other disused glyphs, ligatures, and abbreviations).

    Here's the important sentence there:

    Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations, such as Up & Down or AT&T.

    Since this was a title of a work which itself contains an ampersand, we therefore retain the ampersand here on Wikipedia.

    Clearly, I did not violate MOS:&.

    In summation, I clearly did not violate either MOS:CAPS or MOS:&.  Therefore, it appears the only reason left for your move was that you subjectively perceived the album's full title to be "ridiculously long."  I'm sure you can admit, just as I did above, that longness is subjective.  Given the clearly subjective nature of longness, and given that there are far better examples of the class "ridiculously long" than Wizards of Waverly Place: Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie, I urge you to consider undoing your move.  Wizards of Waverly Place: Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie might be long, but ridiculously long it is not.

    Best regards,
    allixpeeke (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

    According to sources in the article "Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie" is not part of the title of the album. At best it's a note explaining the contents of the album. It doesn't even rise to subtitle status. The same reliable sources refer to the album as "Wizards of Waverly Place" with a note that it's a soundtrack, which is why the article is at Wizards of Waverly Place (soundtrack) per WP:COMMONNAME. That being the case, MOS:CAPS and MOS:& have definitely been violated in moving the article to that title. Long names don't help navigation, and the article titles that you've included above all redirect to much shorter names. People using redirects wouldn't search for something like Most of the remixes we've made for other people over the years except for the one for Einstürzende Neubauten because we lost it and a few we didn't think sounded good enough or just didn't fit in length-wise, but including some that are hard to find serves no purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    Dear AussieLegend,

    First, you write, "According to sources in the article "Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie" is not part of the title of the album."

    Which sources specifically claim that "Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie" is not part of the full title?

    I mean, I see sites that don't bother to list the full title, but I see nothing that says, "Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie is not part of the album's title" (or anything to that effect).

    For example, instead of Amazon listing the full title of the Fiona Apple album, it simply lists it as When the Pawn.  That doesn't change the fact that the full title is When the Pawn Hits the Conflicts He Thinks like a King What He Knows Throws the Blows When He Goes to the Fight and He'll Win the Whole Thing 'fore He Enters the Ring There's No Body to Batter When Your Mind Is Your Might so When You Go Solo, You Hold Your Own Hand and Remember That Depth Is the Greatest of Heights and If You Know Where You Stand, Then You Know Where to Land and If You Fall It Won't Matter, Cuz You'll Know That You're Right.

    For example, instead of Amazon listing the full title of the Soulwax album, it simply lists it as Most of the Remixes.  That doesn't change the fact that the full title is Most of the remixes we've made for other people over the years except for the one for Einstürzende Neubauten because we lost it and a few we didn't think sounded good enough or just didn't fit in length-wise, but including some that are hard to find because either people forgot about them or simply because they haven't been released yet, a few we really love, one we think is just ok, some we did for free, some we did for money, some for ourselves without permission and some for friends as swaps but never on time and always at our studio in Ghent.

    For example, instead of Amazon listing the full title of the Chumbawamba album, it simply lists it as The Boy Bands Have Won.  That doesn't change the fact that the full title is The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won, If We Allow Our Culture to Be Shaped by Mimicry, Whether from Lack of Ideas or from Exaggerated Respect. You Should Never Try to Freeze Culture. What You Can Do Is Recycle That Culture. Take Your Older Brother's Hand-Me-Down Jacket and Re-Style It, Re-Fashion It to the Point Where It Becomes Your Own. But Don't Just Regurgitate Creative History, or Hold Art and Music and Literature as Fixed, Untouchable and Kept Under Glass. The People Who Try to 'Guard' Any Particular Form of Music Are, Like the Copyists and Manufactured Bands, Doing It the Worst Disservice, Because the Only Thing That You Can Do to Music That Will Damage It Is Not Change It, Not Make It Your Own. Because Then It Dies, Then It's Over, Then It's Done, and the Boy Bands Have Won.

    Therefore, by the same token, the fact that Amazon lists the soundtrack to Wizards of Waverly Place as Wizards Of Waverly Place has no bearing on whether or not the full title is Wizards of Waverly Place: Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie.

    While I see sources that fail to lack the full title, I don't see any sources that specifically claim that Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie is not part of the full title.  Perhaps I didn't look hard enough, though, so please let me know to which sources you were referring.

    Second, you write, "[T]he article titles that you've included above all redirect to much shorter names."

    Well, yes, because those were examples of "ridiculously long" titles.  Since Wizards of Waverly Place: Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie is not "ridiculously long" (emphasis added), it would not need to be redirected to a shorter name.

    Third, you write, "People using redirects wouldn't search for something like Most of the remixes we've made for other people over the years except for the one for Einstürzende Neubauten because we lost it and a few we didn't think sounded good enough or just didn't fit in length-wise, but including some that are hard to find serves no purpose."

    Thanks for saying I am not a person.

    Sincerely yours,
    allixpeeke (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

    (talk page stalker) These comments are unreasonably long. You are asking Aussie to prove a negative, which is an unreasonable burden shift. Nothing at the US Copyright Office suggests a title that long. I don't see anything of this nature at the ASCAP website. Seems like it's up to you to substantiate that this is the official title. To me it seems intuitive that the extra words represent a description of what the album is about, not a continuation of the title. Like "Official motion picture soundtrack" which in most other cases we would simply disambiguate as "Your Title Here (soundtrack)" or similar, not "Your Title Here Official Motion Picture Soundtrack". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    Dear Cyphoidbomb, I am not asking AussieLegend to prove a negative.  According to AussieLegend, "According to sources in the article 'Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie' is not part of the title of the album."  I am asking AussieLegend to specify which sources in the article said that.  That's a positive.  As soon as they are provided, I will see that I am wrong, and alter my position on what is the correct title of the album.  (As for the length of the comments, they only appear unreasonably long because they include some very long titles in them, or, in the case of my first comment to her or him, some large quotes about titling conventions.)  Sincerely, allixpeeke (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    The very first reference does not include the note,[1] as does the second, which unfortunately is dead now. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    Dear AussieLegend, that is not a source which claims that Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie is not part of the title.  (In fact, it fails to even mention Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie.)  You said there were sources in the article that said Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie is not part of the title.  I'm interested in reading those sources.

    (As I mentioned above, the most that can be said of Amazon is that it fails to list the full name of various albums, such as this one, this one, this one, and this one.  Amazon can be very inconsistent with titling, e.g., it lists the full title of this soundtrack but fails to list the full title of the sequel's soundtrack.  Likewise, while Amazon gives the full title to this soundtrack as well as the full title to both of the soundtrack albums of the sequel (1, 2), it fails to give the full title to the soundtrack of the third film in the trilogy.  Still sticking just with Mike Myers films, we can see Amazon listing the full title to this soundtrack but not its first or second sequel while listing the full title to the fourth film's score but not its soundtrack.  Amazon is simply all over the map, and has never been a reliable source for titles.)

    Google provides over a thousand instances of the correct title, including iTunes and last.fm.  It honestly appears to me that the only reason there are sites that don't list the full title is that the people writing in some cases are not motivated enough to write the full title and in other cases think that writing the full title makes the title look too bulky.  But if there is a source out there that actually claims that Songs from and Inspired by the TV Series & Movie is not part of the title, I will give it a fair and honest appraisal.  But, I must say, I've searched Google and, whether I searched for "not part of the title" or "not in the title" or "not the title," have come up with nothing so far.

    Sincerely,
    allixpeeke (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

    Untitled

    Please point me to the section where it says the 'status quo' reigns? So far there are two people who have edited the page to include the section about the lockout, and only one who wants to completely DELETE the section. Ive already stated my reasons for keeping it EXTENSIVELY on the talk page, yet he keeps COMPLETELY DELETING IT. He has an unusually enthusiastic interest in doing this. He has not answered my statements about why I think the section should be included. I would appreciate moderation in this? How do i get that mediation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk • contribs) 09:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

    Please note also THIS on the policy page, re reverts.: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see)." Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

    @Accurate Nuanced Clear:
    "Please point me to the section where it says the 'status quo' reigns?" - I linked to WP:STATUSQUO in the warning that I left on your talk page, as well as in my edit summary when I reverted your edit at Sydney. WP:STATUSQUO says During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns. You've obviously chosen to ignore both the link and the warning, as you've reverted again.[2]
    "So far there are two people who have edited the page to include the section about the lockout, and only one who wants to completely DELETE the section." - If you check the talk page you'll see that both editors there oppose inclusion as written for numerous reasons. However, the number of editors opposing your edits is irrelevant. You've made a bold edit, which has been good faith reverted. Your responsibility now is to gain consensus for your edits to be included, as I explained on your talk page. Edit-warring is only likely to result in a block. I'm about to have dinner, and then, since I've already warned you about edit-warring, I intend raising a report at the edit-warring noticeboard. I strongly suggest that you revert your last reversion at the article. It may save you from a block. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

    How do you suggest I gain consensus from people who simply delete what I wrote and have ignored the EXTENSIVE material on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk • contribs) 14:26, 14 July 2015‎ (UTC)

    You could try discussing the edits instead of simply reverting. See my comment below as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

    ATTEMPT AT CONSENSUS on SYDNEY>ENTERTAINMENT

    This was left on the talk pages for SYDNEY and the user HAPPYWALDO, who seems INTENT on deleting this section.

    Dear HappyWaldo, considering that the lockout laws ARE now a major feature of the night-time ENTERTAINMENT situation in Sydney, since they entirely GOVERN *ALL* situations in which locals and internationals engage in entertainment in the traditional entertainment districts of Sydney, what is your proposal for at least MENTIONING the basics of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

    If you bother reading the discussion at Talk:Sydney you'll see that there are already proposals for handling the content. You just haven't bothered reading them and instead have concentrated on edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

    Another split

    Well, here we go again. Someone split List of Person of Interest episodes into seasonal articles with no content save the episode list and an infobox. Total edits: 131, none to the article. I have to put in redirects, but my iPad is fighting me. Anyway, discussion begins again, if you care to weigh in. --Drmargi (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

    Sorry, this got away from me as I was having problems at Sydney but I see it's been resolved for now. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

    L+7 Ratings

    Hi Aussie, what's your take on this type of content? I've always been against this type of cruft, I think any ratings information beyond overall viewership is pretty much WP:NOTSTATS unless it's somehow notable (breaks records, is No. 1 is a certain statistic, etc.) What's your take? Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

    MOS:TV supports inclusion of ratings figures, but it doesn't specify where we draw the line as to what ratings information we include, which I think is a problem. When we did some major work on {{Episode list}} a few years ago I pushed for (and got) a "viewers" field because I think as you do, that all we need is overall viewership. Addition of that field allows for use of "Aux4" as additional ratings information if required but I really don't think we need more than that, especially all the extra information, which really doesn't mean much to most people. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    If I may intrude... The current gold standard is the Live + 3 day ratings. Networks are using them to make renewal decisions and set ad rates, etc. versus Live + same day. It might be worth considering a shift to posting these viewer numbers. --Drmargi (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

    Re: List of Dog with a Blog episodes

    Regarding the line breaks, thank you. I've just now fixed it on List of Girl Meets World episodes and Henry Danger and will fix that on the others I've done it on as well. Amaury (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

    RfA

    Hi Aussie, FYI, related to a recent conversation on your talk page that has been archived, I'm about to make the dip back into the soul-crushing vat of admin candidacy. I mention this here not to solicit your vote, rather in the hope that it will either inspire you to run as well, or put you off entirely of the idea of becoming an admin. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks for letting me know. I missed the last RfA. I won't miss this one. --AussieLegend (✉)
    Well, like I said, only mentioning it for the entertainment value. I'm pretty sure it's karma for all the reverts I do in a year. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure I revert more than you do. Always for good reason though. I hope you've created lots of content in the past 16 months. It doesn't have to be good, just created.;) This is probably not a good example though. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    I can't say I have much content creation. Hard to say. Much of what I do is spot-check garbage and fix it, but I've only created one or two articles. That's something some admins grouse about. Can't help that, my brain isn't quite geared for that. It's hard for me to find subjects that are of interest to me, and when I do, there aren't many references at my disposal. I'd rather have good references than create a garbage article with hokey ones. Most of the stuff I do is cleanup, which I think makes me a good janitor candidate. I recently did a ton of work on WordGirl, for instance. Someone had lazily combined episodes--like, S4 and S5 were mushed into one article for some reason. There were no references, etc. I think finally that article series is passable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    I fully understand. Apparently I've created 2,936 pages, but most of these have been redirects or article splits. I usually do cleanup. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

    You are now a template editor

    Your account has been granted the "template editor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

    You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

    Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

    If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

    Useful links:

    Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

    Thankyou. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

    Break out the champagne! --Drmargi (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

    In practice it just means I can edit {{Infobox television episode}} again and {{Infobox television}} directly. No b iggie really. I'd rather break out the champagne for Cyphoidbomb on 26 July. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, I know. I was just being facetious. --Drmargi (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

    Pawn Stars Australia

    Hello! I have tried my best to fix this article. I don't know how I can get an image for it such as the main Pawn Stars article has but what do you think? Alec Station (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    It's a definite improvement over what was there. I've only made some minor changes, which I've explained in the edit summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    Why this? Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    9×19mm is a redirect to 9×19mm Parabellum, which is what appeared to be in the article, although I see now it was actually 9x19mm Parabellum. Apparently the article was moved in 2011, long after it was added to the article.[3] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    Fewer posts please

    Hi Aussie. I just went to read the latest developments on the Cyphoidbomb RfA and noticed some comments about your frequent posts. You are currently the single most prolific contributor to that page, beating out both the candidate and the nominator. Please stop getting dragged into these repetitive back-and-forth bickering threads. I wouldn't have commented here, except that this is the second time in the last few days that I've noticed you doing it and I don't normally follow anything related to your topic area at all. Many of your comments at Template talk:Infobox television season and related threads follow the same pattern of repetitive poking. That you were not the only person doing this there doesn't make it OK. Please rethink this style; it creates a lot of noise and distracts from your point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    None of my posts have been repetitive poking. I've merely responded as appropriate given the circumstances. Prior to my responding to the copyvio claims at the RfA, the candidate lost 2 support votes and gained 4 opposes, which is what prompted me to comment. Since my involvement, one editor has added his support, directly citing my explanation of the facts and another has moved from oppose to neutral citing me as his reasoning for doing that. It's not my fault that Stfg, despite his claims to the contrary, didn't bother to adequately check the facts, which are all there in the edit histories. At Template talk:Infobox television season "and related threads" I've argued the same points as others, and the two dissenters have both of received warnings from administrators. One was even threatened with loss of his templateeditor permission and when I requested that permission the other aggressively opposed. If you're going to go after somebody, there are plenty of other targets who've actually done something wrong. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    Lost interwikis in Chicago Fire (TV series)

    Hi AussieLegend, due to your last edit on this article, the interwiki links mysteriously got lost. I don't know why yet... On wikidata, everything seems correct. Any ideas how to fix it? Chaddy (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

    I have no idea, given that all I did was revert to an earlier version. Nothing that I did should have affected interwiki links at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    Well... I asked for help there. Chaddy (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    Problem solved. Chaddy (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

    Whyedithere

    I filed at WP:AN3 in the hopes of getting this fracas under control. We shall see. But these damned cast tables are becoming increasingly problematic. --Drmargi (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    I've added to the report. I'm pretty sure that the editor is a sock, most likely of Andrewwikiedit.[4] As for those tables, yes, they're definitely a problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    I vaguely remember that guy. We need to talk seriously about the tables when I don't have a thumping headache. --Drmargi (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    I'll second that. Try standing the right way up, it should help.;) --AussieLegend (✉) 00:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yeah, but if I do that your way, the blood will rush to my head. I'm thinking of going horizontal fo a spell... --Drmargi (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    Head is better. Do you want to run an SPI on this guy, or should we look at the pattern of edits first? The 2015 TV schedule seems most opportune. --Drmargi (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    Checking the edit patterns is probably a good first step but I remember thinking "Heeeee's baaaack!" when he first appeared. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    I reviewed a bit of his history. I notice the tendency to make absolute statements, and the failure to sign posts, plus tantrums in common. It's a start. --Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    I think I might have made a connection. Check your e-mail shortly. --Drmargi (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    Hey

    Hope I'm not causing too much trouble, heh heh. I only recently got heavily into editing sitcom articles (most of what I did before was just vandalism reversions), so I'm still learning the ropes. I saw some other list of episodes articles did not have the width, so I was only matching it to those. Amaury (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

    Like everything else, it's a continual learning curve. I'm still learning and I've been here for nearly 10 years. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    User:Whyedithere

    Check this out. User:Whyedithere#Wikipedia Users that Suck - you made it, as did I! Alex|The|Whovian 09:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    Clearly a personal attack so I reverted, but he restored. An ANI discussion has been opened, at which I've pinged everyone involved, and I'm currently drafting another SPI case. Maybe I shouldn't tell you that because you're now apparently his bestest buddy. ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 09:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yep, caught that notification. Gotta be careful, I might report back to him. ;) Alex|The|Whovian 11:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    Need your expertise

    The template of Lost_Girl_(season_5) episodes should include a bar dividing the episodes into Part 1 and Part 2. It should look the same as what was done for Breaking Bad's list: Breaking_Bad_(season_5)#Episodes

    I tried this:

    ! colspan="7" style="background: #2a8158; color: #fff;" {{!}} {{visible anchor|Part 1}}

    and tried this:

    ! colspan="7;" style="background: #2a8158; color: #fff;"| <span id="Part 1"></span>{{anchor|Part 1}}Part 1

    but whatever I do, am unable to create a separate bar for Part 1 and Part 2. Can you please help? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

    Do you mean like this? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    YES! Thank you!!! :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

    Need your help

    Hey, AL. I hope you'll be waking up to a sunny NSW winter day in a couple hours. I would be grateful if you would re-engage on the template talk page regarding how best to expedite color-contrast compliance in TV series articles. Your comments have already hinted that you know this is a real problem, and that you're struggling to find a solution. I'd like to try to help. Ping me, or follow up on my user talk page, if there is something you would prefer to share outside the template talk page. As always, I look forward to working with you. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    @Dirtlawyer1: Sorry for not responding earlier but I've been pretty busy with a 400km round trip to Sydney today and have only had a chance to make a handful of edits. Very briefly, I'm all for the "Top 25 colour schemes" option. I was actually going to suggest a Top 30 (The Simpsons already has 26 seasons), along with dumping colour from the infobox altogether. It's a little more complicated than that, but there is a method to my madness and I hope to explain more in coming days. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Understood, AL. Geraldo already alluded to the internal politics of WP:TV regarding colors in his comments on the template talk page, and mentioned the no-colors option. That's why my proposed 30-day solution puts the burden on the article editors to make the choice of a new AAA-compliant scheme for each non-compliant article. If the article editors don't avail themselves of the 30 days to make a new compliant choice, there's not a lot of legitimate room to bitch and moan. After the deadline expires, do you have a preference of (a) removing the colors and leaving an uncolored neutral scheme, or (b) WP:TV imposing its own color choices? That's entirely up to WP:TV as far as I'm concerned. Resolution of the dispute and timely contrast compliance are my only two concerns.
    I would be grateful if you would endorse the proposed 30-day approach on the template talk page, so we can get some movement on this. While you're traveling, are there specific WP:TV editors to whom I should look to draft the 30-day notice and to interact with article editors? Geraldo, maybe? Frankly, given the recent history, it would probably be better if one of the prominent WP:TV regulars were available to explain this to the article editors, when some of them inevitably object, rather than a template editor or another outsider like me. Seeing that most of the talk parties agreed in principle, and only the timing was under debate, it's kind of surprising that this generated as much heat as it did. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Aussie, sorry about deleting your comment from my user talk page. I work a lot with Alakzi on unrelated template projects, and I am friendly with Dr. Mies. That said, I'm playing this down the middle, and no good can come from re-hashing the previous disputes, and that includes restarting the blame game. I hope you understand my perspective on this. I'm urging everyone to make the accommodations necessary to achieve the goal with no more blood-letting. That probably means that everyone -- myself included -- needs to bite their tongue. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    I fully understand. These things happen. More importantly, to address your earlier request, Geraldo is certainly an editor you should look at working with to draft the notice. Other editors you can consider Bignole, Cyphoidbomb and Favre1fan93. They're all experienced and there are others who have this page watchlisted and may wish to offer assistance. Given the editors involved in the debate, I'm not surprised at the heat. Some of the editors have particularly strong opinions and some have tunnel vision. At least one is a really nice guy who does a lot of good work but has a tendency to get himself in more trouble than he should, likely because of his age. And, of course, it doesn't help when some people align themselves with a certain "freelance creator & curator of content & communities". --AussieLegend (✉) 18:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I am familiar with the template cast of characters from TfD and previous ACCESSIBILITY debates. Most of the WP:TV crowd are unknown to me. Cyphoidbomb, active WP:TV member and newly minted admin that he is, may prove to be helpful. Given the issues that colors generate for WP:TV, it would probably be helpful if he were fully versed in WP:COLORS and WP:ACCESSIBILITY going forward. We may want to invite his participation in this to help with the implementation, and he will be a sympathetic admin to explain the "rules" when some article editors inevitably squeal about the changes.
    Which reminds me . . . is your Wikipedia email function enabled? I wanted to share some thoughts with you about Cyphoidbomb's RfA, but for obvious reasons, I would prefer to do that offline. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    Email away, it works fine. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    Did you get the email I sent yesterday regarding the RfA? The WP email system has been less than 100% reliable over the past year . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    (talk page stalker) I have some, but not much, experience with accessibility. I commented on Aussie's proposal and I'm happy to help in whatever capacity I can. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, Cyphoidbomb. You may want to start reading up on WP:COLORS and WP:ACCESSIBILITY, because I suspect WP:TV is going to need an admin to help with color-contrast compliance over the next 30 to 60 days. It always helps when someone with the admin flag is available to gently explain the guidelines to the inevitably disgruntled article editors, especially when the admin is a familiar face. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Not helpful: [5] and [6]. I'm involved in this discussion to reduce the rhetoric and focus the parties. As I said above, I'm familiar with the cast of characters. Please don't take the bait. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    There's absolutely no focussing Andy. He always has to try baiting other editors and sending discussions off-topic with absolute bullshit. He gets away with saying what he wants without rebuttal because it gets to the point that people don't want to reply. I really don't understand why administrators are so scared of banning his arse permanently. He's been blocked enough times to warrant it. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    BTW, you could easily use a very thin black highlight/silhouette around the yellow "Legend" in your signature to cure the contrast issue of yellow text against an off-white background, and that would only accentuate your very lovely use of the Aussie national colors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    This can be done with text-shadow: AussieLegend. Alakzi (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, A. Aussie can play with that and see if he can come up with something he likes as much as his present signature. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

    Scorpion

    I just wanted to thank you for actually giving me a reason for your removal of the page instead of just reverting without saying something. AllThingsMultimedia (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:The Pirate Bay

    So I'm having a hard time understanding your approach to resolving disputes for The Pirate Bay, and your recent comments have only confuse me more. Take your latest [7]. If you value WP:FOC (and WP:DR), then why continue to violate it?

    As for the diff, it was my rather surprised finding when I started looking into the dispute. Is anything inaccurate in my findings? Why bring it up now, more than a week after it was posted? --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

    It should be obvious that your post, which concentrated on the conduct of another editor instead of on the discussion at hand,[8] was raised as the result of you hypocritically citing WP:FOC in response to a gentle request to stop your persistent reference to IDHT,[9] a request that you have apparently decided to ignore.[10] I had actually forgotten your post and only noticed it while repairing damage caused by your partner in crime. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for responding. You didn't answer my questions though. At this point I recommend you review our dispute resolution and behavioral policies and guidelines.
    The discussions appear to be winding down, so I hope this all becomes a non-issue. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    To be quite blunt, you need to take your own advice. You're the one who keeps citing IDHT in response to arguments from other editors and you're the one who raised the issue of another editor's conduct but then had the hide to cite WP:FOC. I've asked you to respond to my concerns but you refuse, which is very poor conduct on your part. You're not the one who opened the RfC as part of the DR process, that was me, and I had to do it because nobody else would. RfCs normally run for 30 days, more if consensus can't be reached and we're only 12 days in so the discussion has a long way to go. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    "I've asked you to respond to my concerns but you refuse." Sorry you feel that way. How about trying again here now? --Ronz (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    The RfC is the correct place for your response. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    I think we shoul work it out here and summarize the results at the RfC. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    No response? Well, you can't say I didn't try. I hope you won't keep repeating that I refused to respond to your concerns now. I've tried multiple times now. --Ronz (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    As I said, the RfC is the correct place for your response. Not here. Please don't claim that you've tried to respond because you haven't. If you had tried there'd be a response on the article's talk page. I don't know why you want to discuss here instead of in the appropriate venue. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    So you want to follow up. Then let's do it here so we won't be distracted and you won't be accused of more repetitive arguments on the article talk page.
    Further, as I said when I started this discussion, I'm more interested in seeing if we can come to any dispute resolution at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

    August 2015

    Stop icon This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Per WP:VANDAL: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

    Normally, I delete shit like this but I'm leaving this for the record. Alakzi's persistent removal of posts made by other editors were most certainly NOT good faith edits. They were vandalism by an editor who clearly cannot control himself. You even had to warn him to step down.[11] Your own edits are also inexcusable. Accusing other editors of trolling, when what they have actually done is to leave very appropriate warnings about Alakzi's disruptive behaviour is not at all acceptable.[12][13][14] Your abuse of the warning template above warrants its own warning, but I will not stoop to your level, and in any case you would no doubt ignore it. Please don't bother posting here again. You are not welcome on my talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

    Please stop

    @Alakzi, AlexTheWhovian, AussieLegend, and Pigsonthewing: This has got to be the dumbest edit war I have ever seen: the four of you are fighting over the name of an obscure template that already has a redirect of the same name, and then you are deleting templated warnings from each other's user talk page -- seriously? When all four of you are blocked, expect to serve the block for the duration because I expect you will have a hard time finding a sympathetic administrator to unblock you. Just stop it. All of you. Please. [Posted contemporaneously to all four user talk pages.] Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks for not being arbitrary as to whose page you posted this to, although I don't appreciate five notifications for the same thing. Your attempt to resolve this is appreciated, but in this case you probably should have stayed out of it because you don't seem to be aware of all the facts. The template discussion is a valid discussion, into which Alakzi inserted himself by making a bad non-admin closure and moving the template. When that was reverted by another editor, who you haven't included in your posts, Alakzi joined the discussion, after reasonable attempts by others to get him to reverse his bad close. During subsequent discussions I asked Alakzi to explain how a template name affects maintenance and his response was You appear to have a very narrow understanding of "maintenance". Alex responded with almost the same post, substituting "discussion" for "maintenance". Neither post was appropriate but Alakzi decided that Alex's response was trolling and deleted his post, starting the edit-war. He even reverted my reply to him, when there was absolutely no justification to do so. Appropriate warnings were left on his talk page, which Pigsonthewing deleted inappropriately. His use of the warning template above was clearly inappropriate. The one thing he did do was warn Alakzi, but even that was ignored and Alakzi has breached 3RR. Your plea to Pigsonthewing has been ignored,[15], Alakzi refuses to see his reverts as the problem,[16] and, to be blunt, I have to completely agree with Alex's response.[17] If somebody inappropriately deletes your posts, and that someone has shown himself to be a serial troublemaker who refuses to discuss rationally and has only recently been blocked for personal attacks, do you think the correct thing to do is just to sit on your arse and do nothing, because that seems to be what your post here is suggesting? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

    Your second (AWB) account

    Hey Aussie. Going through some articles to help with the color issue made me realize that a lot of articles that use the TV season infobox need some formatting clean up. I didn't know if this was possible with your second account which you do AWB edits. Some things specifically are many still have the DVD region info in the infobox, and the formatting of the season_name parameter needs work. I've come across many such as season_name = SHOW'' Season X', when it should be season_name = SHOW (season X) (in traditional cases). Let me know if this is possible. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

    Until now I've been changing season names manually. There have been some recent suggestions to change the infobox in such a way that might warrant going through all articles to bring them all up to a current state and this would be possible with AWB. Rather than go through twice, I'd like to see how the current suggestions pan out. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    I saw that suggestion and agree it might be good to see how that pans out. And if that warrants the change, we can hit the DVD fields then too. Thanks as always. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

    Airplane Repo

    You have some serious issues you need to work out. You riveted two of my edits and then found out what I did was actually correct so you fixed it again. How about you do the research first then revert so you won't be wrong all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllThingsMultimedia (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

    You have some serious issues you need to work out - Please be civil in your communications with other editors. Your edits were unexplained, they made unsourced changes to dates, caused broken links by making the secition headings different to the links in the series overview table, and added unsourced episodes.[18] In order to correct these errors it was better to revert and then fix what actually needed to be fixed.[19] The diffence between your changes and what was actually needed was significant.[20] Your most recent edits are also problematic,[21] but fortunately not as much as the earlier version. I've left the two "TBA" episodes in for now, but typically we don't include episodes unless they have a title as the lack thereof indicates uncertainty and that means inclusion is WP:CRYSTAL. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

    Peyton Meyer

    Hello AussieLegend! Back in 2013, you took the article Peyton Meyer to AfD for deletion (and no surprise there! as back in 2013 he'd done pretty much nothing!). Well, it's two years later, Girl Meets World is two seasons in now, and I got bored and decided to see what I could find, now, in 2015 – this is what I came with. I thought I'd show you and see what you thought – I think it clears WP:A7 for sure, and probably WP:NACTOR, but admittedly it's... thin. Oh, and pinging Geraldo Perez too, and this just came up elsewhere today... Anyway, let me know what you think – if you think it's "not there" yet, I can sit on it for a while, or move it to 'Draft' space; and, if it's "there", well I've already taken a couple of "unsalting" requests to WP:RfPP lately, so I'm sure one more won't matter!... whatever you think. Just let me know. Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

    Can I interpret a no response as "no objection"? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    The new version is an improvement but, as you've said, it's thin. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    I agree. (I think I'd like him to have one or two more credits (esp. movies) on my end...) So, I guess the question is, 1) is it still worth it to take it to article space?, and, 2) would it survive if it was taken to AfD after that? Once I hear your thoughts on that, it'll help me decide if I should take it to article space, or put it draft space for now... Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The Girl Meets World role is one, but I don't think the Dog With a Blog role was "significant", so I don't think it yet reaches a standard that would pass AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    OK, thanks AussieLegend! It turns out, there was already a draft in Draft space (Draft:Peyton Meyer), so I've merged my content in to that, and cleaned the original draft up. So, if this ever comes up again with anyone else, just point them towards the draft. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

    A favor

    Could you have a wander over to talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and have a glance at the discussion about the main cast table [22]? I think we could use another experienced user there to clarify the situation in regards to wiki conventions on fiction. Thanks! --109.158.107.195 (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

    I've made comment. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    Now, to get rid of the tables at NCIS and Hawaii 5-0. Not to mention the bloat in their character descriptions. --Drmargi (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

    WWYD?

    I saw this edit and I'm strongly tempted to revert. It seems that Penguins in this context is a proper noun, a noun that describes "The Penguins of Madagascar". What say ye? Similarly at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles articles we would describe the team as the Turtles. ?? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

    You're an admin now. I thought that made you impotentomnipotent so you didn't need to ask questions? But seriously, a while ago I made a similar edit at List of Arrow episodes,[23] so, after this reversion I asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Based on that the edit at The Penguins of Madagascar would seem correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    Well even if I'm wrong I'm going to revert him. (Now you know I'm an admin.) I appreciate the input, Aussie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    (talk page stalker) Can I jump in with my teacher hat on? The use of penguins in lower case is correct. Penguins is capitalized in the title because the title is in title case. Penguins is still a common noun in the narrative. --Drmargi (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    I always appreciate a learned mind, Drmargi. However, because I'm not comfortable being wrong, I've now indeffed SchreiberBike for being right. Now if I can further pick your brain...which is correct: "As of August 12, 2015 the film has grossed $170 million" or "As of August 12, 2015 the film had grossed $170 million"? (I've asked the ref desk this a few times and I keep getting conflicting answers.) I know this isn't appropriate for Aussie's talk page, but I promise to buy him a beverage of his choice if I'm ever in his neck of the woods. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    The film HAS grossed. You're referring to its gross box office in the present, thus the present tense. I see you're enjoying the power of the block. Good for you!  ;-) --Drmargi (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    I know this isn't appropriate for Aussie's talk page - meh. If you're being civil you can do anything as far as I'm concerned - admins who haven't created 200,000 FA articles excepted of course.
    I promise to buy him a beverage of his choice if I'm ever in his neck of the woods. - OK, even an admin without FA content creation can post here. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

    So you want to discuss or not?

    It appeared you had withdrawn from the discussion [24]. Are you interested in discussing the topic again? --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

    As our discussion is obviously pointless I'm allowing others to participate in the RfC pending its eventual closure, as others are apparently doing. Your assumption that I had withdrawn from the discussion there is not an excuse to try to gain attention by edit-warring in the article again. If you persist in such disruptive actions I will have no alternative but to seek administrative intervention, also again. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    So what you're saying is that you've edit-warred without participating in any subsequent discussion, and you are refusing to discuss the matters with me. Is this correct? --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    This is exactly the reason why discussion with you is pointless. During the RfC the disputed content should not be edited. You chose to continue the previous edit-war in which you were involved by editing the content though as a way of attracting attention, as clearly demonstrated by the opening post here. Please do not post here again. I am busy drafting an AN3 report that I will submit in the event that you choose to disrupt the article further. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    Ronz, please do not post here again, as I asked you not to. If you do, one of my talk page stalkers may decide to answer you but I will not, and your posts will be deleted. If you persist in harrassing me, I will seek administrative intervention. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

    SPI

    In utter frustration, I left a message on the AN noticeboard this morning in the hope an admin would get busy and see to the extreme backlog at SPI. It's really out of hand. I left a message for Swarm, who has blocked Andew in his various iterations in the past, several days ago; he took his time replying, then said he'd go look at it, but so far, hasn't. They all seem to be busy defending the Cult of Corbett and hanging out on various drama boards or Liz's RfA discussion, I guess. Let's see if it helps. --Drmargi (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

    I'll take a look at some of these when I get more time today. I'm still learning the ropes of adminship. I did block and tag at least one sock from SPI today. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, Cyphoid! I didn't want to bother you about them for just the reason you mention: you're still getting your feet under you. The backlog is just horrendous, and even a post on the Administrator's Noticeboard is getting no response. I don't mean to be so down on all the admins, but those SPI reports should be addressed in a timely manner, not sit for ten days without so much as a clerk's attention. Sigh... --Drmargi (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

    Got him. They found a snoozer, if not a sleeper as well, which he opened the day after you originally filed the SPI. Hope you don't mind that I added the checkuser request. I couldn't see that it would ever be resolved otherwise. --Drmargi (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

    I have no doubt he'll be back. It looks like he posted at the SPI, took a break to create the sleeper and then came straight back to the SPI after that. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    Probably, on all counts. If so, we'll spot him before long. He's got too many tells. --Drmargi (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    Speaking of tells, how often have you seen recurring characters referred to as "recurrent characters" in TV articles? To me, it seems an unusual term that was added to List of The Big Bang Theory characters in December 2009[25] and removed in October 2011,[26] nearly 4 years ago. It was championed in that article by an editor who asked to be blocked a year ago, so imagine my surprise to see it return in this edit today, more so because Emily Sweeney didn't appear in TBBT until 29 months after "recurrent" was removed from the character article. It seems seems an obvious tell to me. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    Never. That's a very telling error. Another sock. We've got an epidemic. Hell, Unframboise edited as an IP throughout his block; he plays American, but when you catch unguarded writing, he gives himself away as British. Now he's made a little friend in another sock a second editor and I caught who tefloned out of his SPI by playing super-newbie. --Drmargi (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    Drmargi, did I? First I've heard of this! I'm going to be very friendly about this: if I'm being reported for using names like "chick," then you probably shouldn't refer to people in such condescending terms as "little friend," etc. Of course, I doubt Wikipedia admins will see your use of language as a problem. Do as you say and not as you do, and so forth! Have a nice day. --Unframboise (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    Hi, Im the "super-newbie", Drmargi called me a twerp. GlacialFrost (Talk) 03:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

    FYI

    Yo. FYI: User_talk:Drmies#Need_consultation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

    WP:PAYWALL

    A source doesn't have to be accessible by everyone. WP:PAYWALL says "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." It's perfectly legitimate for a source to require login credentials, as long as there is someone who can verify it. Elizium23 (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

    I'm well aware of this, but in the context of the discussion with the problematic editor I was correct. The only person who seems able to verify the content is the problematic editor who keeps adding it, along with WP:SYNTH, as explained in the many deleted posts on his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

    Whoaaaaa....

    Hey, you edit Big Brother articles, right? Well I was doing some editing at Bigg Boss Halla Bol (some kinda Big Brother knockoff) because it was needlessly table-laden as of this version. (I got wind of the article because I watch TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page, which I believe to be the actual center of the English Wikipedia) I converted a lot of those tables into prose and left some comments on the talk page where I whined about the unnecessary tables. An editor wrote, "If your reaction to that was 'wow' wait till you see this. Pinoy Big Brother: Unlimited nomination history. I know we come from different backgrounds and I run the risk of offending you, but my official response to the tables at this Pinoy article is "HOLY FUCKING ACTUAL WHAT THE SHIT?!" May this tale bring you delight and amusement over the weekend, for that is one bastard of a table. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

    Indeed I am highly offended by the use of all caps, :/ or at least I was until I opened the page. Now I believe your response is an understatement at best.
    "HOLY FUCKING ACTUAL WHAT THE SHIT?!" is more appropriate. And to think, I was going to show you this edit that fails WP:COLOR in so many ways. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    (talk page stalker) I'm just going to let Picard handle this one. [27] - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    (talk page stalker) Is there a cult of IP's out there whose mission is to lard on tables in articles such as these elimination shows? And the more highly colored, the better. --Drmargi (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    Damn Picard! That's typical of the captain of the Woosyprise, although in this case he's probably right. My uncle used to live in Hamilton, which has a high concentration of Italian immigrants. Italians are a very colourful people, so much so that just down the road from my uncle's house was an Italian weatherboard house that had a different, bright colour for each board, and each wall had a different palette. When I see these tables I always think back to my childhood, that house, and shudder. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    Rugrats

    I believe we're being duped at List of Rugrats episodes by an IP who is fudging dates. In these edits I spot-checked two pieces of data. For one, they change the date of the "Vacation" episode to {{Start date|1998|5|29}}, but TVGuide shows that it's 1997. I also spot-checked the date above that one, episode 402, "Mother's Day" which the user changes from {{Start date|1997|4|21}} to {{Start date|1997|5|6}} but again, TVGuide indicates the air date is April 21, 1997. I also checked episode 502, "Hiccups" and "Autumn Leaves". The user changed it from {{Start date|1997|12|6}} to {{Start date|1998|9|12}} but again TVGuide says the correct date is December 6, 1997. Sooooo, heads-up! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    As I explained on the talk page, I've suspected something like this for a long time, but I couldn't find a reliable episode list to compare against. I think at least some of the edits are valid. The IP went through and added writers and directors at the beginning of the year, which seem correct based on the aired episodes. It's mainly the dates that seem off, and the edit summaries and posts on the talk page make me think the IP has been checking some shady sources. Not that TV Guide isn't also shady here, all of the episodes include the episode name (oh, if only all programs did that!) and TV Guide is wrong in many cases. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    I assume that the IP has now registered an account based on these edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    Looks about right. I had to revert 78 consecutive edits of his, because he added a crapload of production codes without references. He did this at a few other articles too, including Star Trek-related ones. As for the Rugrats changes, yeah, he seemed to start off good, but then started asking questions about really crappy sources, which made me suspicious. I'm not sure I'd trust the writer/director content unless you happened to verify some of it. It may have been a good-hand setup so that we wouldn't notice the bad-hand. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

    I think we got a huge problem here!

    Dear AussieLegend. You not going to believe this, I've noticing the editor on the site: "AlexTheWhovian" who has been manipulating and doing unnecessary edit warring with the TV shows season articles by changing the colors on the multiple articles like Law & Order, The Mentalist, Hawaii Five-0, NCIS, and Criminal Minds, or more than that. But I'm gonna keep an eye out for him, because this editor is just making an example out of himself, cause I'm fed up with his editing warring, and can you please keep an eye out for him?

    Jp113040 06:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp113040 (talk • contribs)

    @Jp113040: There is an ongoing discussion starting at Template talk:Infobox television season#Colour regarding the requirement to ensure that articles comply with WP:COLOR, which is part of Wikipedia's accessibility guideline. Initially this discussion concerned only {{Infobox television season}} but has logically expanded to include all of our episode lists and colour compliance checking code is now included in {{Infobox television season}}, {{Episode table}} and {{Series overview}}. AlexTheWhovian and other editors have been progressively changing colours used in articles that do not comply with WP:COLOR, and this requires updating season article infoboxes, episode lists and series overview table. As far as I can see, all of the changes made by AlexTheWhovian were valid. As you can see, this revision of Law & Order (season 19) was in Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination and Category:Episode lists with invalid line colors. Alex's edit removed the article from the error categories,[28] but your edit has placed the article back into the error categories.[29] The changes being made aren't malicious, it's important that we make articles compliant with WP:COLOR. I note you've also posted this to Davejohnsan's talk page. I'm sure he'll have a similar response to mine. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)To add to what AussieLegend has said, this site and the Wikimedia Foundation operate out of the US, and as such, must comply with the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 508, which require websites to be constructed so as to be readable by screen readers and other low vision devices. Color selection to match DVD boxes are a thing of the past. Color selection cannot carry information that is not also in text, and must be in appropriate contrast to text. That means color selection has to be practical, not esthetic. Consequently, we don't have a huge problem; we have a group of editors trying to solve one. --Drmargi (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    @Jp113040: Please inform yourself because you go around posting "we have a huge problem" - I am following policy, and reverting may get you warned and/or blocked. Alex|The|Whovian 07:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    @AlexTheWhovian: It would be a good idea to ensure that you use appropriate edit summaries when updating the series overview tables. Something like "Updating to reflect changes in season articles to ensure [[WP:COLOR]] compliance" would probably work. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    I have been most recently with the script that was developed for changing the colours quicker, but I forgot to add these when I first started clearing the colour issue - these are the edits that the user in question has been reverting. Alex|The|Whovian

    Immortality (CSI)

    Apropos our discussion of Kate Beckett, I also took the sheers to the article for the upcoming CSI movie, and am anticipating some resistance. Two major issues: a. the long, long fancrufty production session with effusive quotes and listing of who began/ended production when has been cut down to the key information; and b. an episode list has been removed. The finale is being promoted and has been described as a two-hour film, which doesn't have episodes. However, it's being shot as two episodes based a tweeted picture of the scripts, most likely for later syndication. I've removed all the episode stuff for now, since that's not how the film will be broadcast. Someone or more than one someone has been throwing everything one of the producers has tweeted into the article, and I anticipate some resistance to how much I removed. You might want to go have a look. --Drmargi (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

    Zoie Palmer article

    There's a situation developing in the article with a new registered user, User:Correctfact. He is determined to make edits to the page that have been reversed each time he makes them. I don't know what Admins/Mods do in a situation where a registered user exhibits the behavior of a vandal, but heads need to come together because this guy is not going to let go of what he is dead-set on doing. I don't know if Bearcat is an official Admin of a Lost Girl-connected article, but I left the following message on his Talk page, too: User_talk:Bearcat#User:Correctfact. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

    (talk page stalker) Pyxis Solitary I've added that article to my watchlist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    I just fixed a grammar error and some wordiness. The sources provided aren't clear on who Luca's biological parent is, so there's no justification for the user's removals. --Drmargi (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you. Her article experienced multiple vandalism by anon editors that resulted in its being semi-protected. Based on behavior, this new registered user appears to have been one of them. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

    Removal of suppressed table

    Good day sir! Was there a reason why you removed the suppressed table rows here? It doesn't seem very intuitive to me, but I also don't know what your reasoning was. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

    PR10000 had screwed up the table so much, including when he moved the Season 12 intro sentence, which just said Season 12 continues the holiday tradition of renovating a charity organization before these edits, (note this edit in the middle, which he obviously rethought.[30]) into the table,[31] that I just couldn't be bothered fixing another of his messes again. The difference between the edit before I deleted the section and the current revision is this (That's from what I copied to one of my subpages. The actual diff is a little more messy.[32]). For some reason he moved the "City Kids" episode into the middle of the commented out episodes (4-8) as episode 6 and the commented out episodes contained OR so I didn't see any disadvantage to removing that, especially when I'd already made 39 individual edits to the article fixing up things after his "contributions". (i.e. by that time I was right royally pissed off!) --AussieLegend (✉) 17:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

    Cañaveral de pasiones

    To begin "Julian Moreno," he is not an actor, maybe there will be other media, but as an actor, not. Look some versions of the article and all the name of this supposed actor, was included because that revert to my last edit made months ago. User Jose Julian Moreno takes quite some time bothering at this Wikipedia by adding name to fake actors, because the i had assumed that in the article of Cañaveral de Pasiones not only include the name of the, if not that also the name of other actors that do not exist. So take your time reviewing instead of reverse.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

    @Philip J Fry: That has nothing to do with why I reverted your edit. You wholesale reverted Cañaveral de pasiones to a version from 18 months ago.[33] During those 18 months 33 edits had been made, many of which are valid and should not have been reverted. Four times during the period you had reverted the article to different revisions and "Vandalism of Jose Julian Moreno" gave no indication of why you suddenly decided to revert well past all of those revisions right back to February 2014. Your bulk reversion reintroduced a number of errors that had been correctly fixed including:
    1. incorrect capitalisation of the infobox title
    2. restoration of the format parameter, which no longer exists in the infobox.
    3. removal of the article from the category Category:1996 Mexican television series debuts
    4. removal of the article from the category Category:1996 Mexican television series endings
    None of these are "Vandalism of Jose Julian Moreno". If there was vandalism, it should have been corrected manually after such a long time, rather than simply reverting back to February last year. Changes made since you last reverted were minimal and could easily have been corrected. As it is, the article still contains a number of errors, including the massive WP:REDNOT violations that we've seen previously. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Then it was a mistake my not having reviewed well. Just I see Jose Julian Moreno this vandalizing that article, look at other reviews and I saw that the user already has quite some time adding false information, so you restore the article.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AussieLegend/Archive_23&oldid=1142869830"