User talk:Dechnique23

Welcome, Dechnique23!

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

Be Bold!
Don't let grumpy users scare you off
Meet other new users
Policies, guidelines, and rules (have fun, but watch out for these, as well!)
How to edit a page and write a great article
A handy tutorial, and a picture tutorial
Writing well
Learn from others
Play nicely with others
Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 03:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:DIALogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DIALogo.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Crossmr 21:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NUMB3RS

Hello. Thanks for adding the U.S. Television Ratings section to the NUMB3RS article. Would you be able to provide references for the facts in that section, please? If you want information about how to provide references, please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the references. Much appreciated. Mike Peel 17:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-watched television episodes

Hey Dechnique23,

Did you intend to revert my formatting changes to List of most-watched television episodes? Your summary indicates a relatively minor addition. What happened? — EncMstr 00:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a communication failure somewhere. My original message was responding to this change you made which basically reverted the significant changes I had just made. Perhaps you edited text offline and placed that into the edit box? Or maybe you missed an editing conflict notification? — EncMstr 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Louis Vanaria.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Louis Vanaria.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Top programs of 2001-2002

I've pulled these from the individual network articles; that year is not any more or less notable than any other year. As such, there is no reason that that season's programming should go in the article. --Mhking 00:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't so much that I was only going to post 2001-2002. I was in the process of including all the seasons starting from 2001-2002. Would you mind if I continue that process? --Dechnique23 00:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that putting each year since that point would be too much with those articles; they are already very top-heavy to begin with. At most, I'd suggest last season's information only -- and that's if even that much. --Mhking 00:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if I have all the information of top shows since 2001-2002, why shouldn't I put it online? This is supposed to be an informational web site. And why be a stickler for eliminating this particular information? Do you suggest any other page for this content? Just wondering --Dechnique23 00:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy explicitly states that it is not a mere repository for indiscriminate information (WP:NOT); i.e., just because it is out there doesn't mean that it should be on Wikipedia. Just because you have it, or access to it, doesn't necessarily mean it belongs here. I'd suggest mentioning it on the talk pages to the individual articles and getting input from other posters; my personal feeling is that most folks would suggest that it is too much, but I could be wrong. --Mhking 00:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps tviv.com ? Lambertman 00:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion but users would have to register with that site too. I'm just wondering what the whole bug-a-boo is with posting that info here on each network's Wiki page? --Dechnique23 00:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Color indicators for highest rated network TV shows.

I see you have added the color indicators for the top-rated programs starting with the 1980-81 television season and going further in time to the current primetime season. I, on the other hand, have started doing the same thing to the 1979-80 one and going back, ending with 1964-65. I skipped the top-rated midseason replacements and miniseries. (For example, I coloured only 15 shows on the 1975-76 United States network television schedule) I followed the color scheme for the top-rated programs:

1 program is in lime
2-10 programs are in yellow
11-20 programs are in cyan

I recently put this color scheme on the 1963-64 season, but most programs were in black-and-white during that period and I shouldn't put the lime-yellow-cyan scheme on a primarily B&W TV show schedule. Can you get me a primarily gray color scheme for top-rated TV shows during the black-and-white TV seasons? Jim856796 22:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to emulate the period of B&W TV by providing colors in grayscale? But for the purposes of these pages, you could probably keep the same color scheme because the table is already in a gray color Dechnique23 18:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The envelope site on Nielsen ratings gets dumped

I noticed that theenvelope.latimes.com site got changed and I couldn't find the section on Nielsen Ratings. I was supposed to get the rest of the high-rated shows of the 1950s TV seasons, including the first one (1950-51), but I couldn't do that since the envelope's section on Nielsen ratings was the only site I can get information on highly-rated TV shows from. If I don't find another site about Nielsen Ratings for every season since 1950, I will have to quit Wikipedia. Jim856796 17:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Louis Vanaria.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Louis Vanaria.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Free rationale for File:Louis vanaria.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Louis vanaria.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Louis Vanaria

The article Louis Vanaria has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

promotional, largely unsourced decade old article about a non-notable actor with mostly unnamed/unimportant roles and one offs. No significant coverage and nothing that meets WP:NACTOR

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]