User talk:Sarilox

Welcome!

Hello, Sarilox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

TommyBoy (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Holton

Thank you for catching my error in the Anne Holton article. I had just noticed my error and was going back to fix it when you did. --TommyBoy (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.O.V.

Thank you for your work on this page. You flagged the history section because you couldn't find any verification for it. I'm the creator of the series and the history that was posted there was completely incorrect, so I tried to delete it. However, it reverted to the original page. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Marcnweiss (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wide Angle episodes

Hi there. I thought I'd move this page into the larger Wide Angle (TV series) page, so all the information is in one place. Thanks for updating the episodes! Seelbach (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't combine the episode list article with the main article for Wide Angle. The convention here at Wikipedia is to give lengthy episode lists their own "List of..." article. To combine them would create a main article that is too large and cumbersome for users not seeking specific episode information. Sarilox (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotcha, thanks. I'll just update the info on the "List of..." page. One other thing I'm curious about - right now there's some description and a review of the first episode of the series. We have tons of reviews and descriptions for all of our shows, but it seems like adding all of that would be very cumbersome. If we can't do that for all or many shows, should we have that section at all? Does the "List of" page suffice for episode info? Thanks. Seelbach (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ideally, the "Reception" section should contain reviews that address the series as a whole since that is what the article is about. If you can provide reviews from major publications please do so, but be sure to cite your sources. Otherwise, another editor will probably delete it for not being verifiable. Go ahead and add descriptions to the episodes as well, but they should be original summaries and not someone elses copyrighted content. Unless an episode has its own article there is really nowhere to put more detailed infomation like episode reviews or a thorough plot description. Also, you should read the television style guidelines which will help you with the editing of any television related article. Sarilox (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck

Sorry mate. You are correct, I did not read closely enough. Thanks for reverting. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for King Mondo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of King Mondo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tv Infoboxes

I have to admit, I'm not going for 100% perfection when adding these infoboxes simply because there are so many of them. I've got the list down from 2,500 to less then 800 now and it would take me (by myself) years to thoroughly investigate all of these shows. What I'm trying to do is get the infoboxes up there and provide a reasonable level of accuracy which can be bettered by someone else. It might take me 20 minutes to put an infobox up but it'll take whoever is correcting one erroneous fact on an infobox a couple of seconds. That way, everything gets an infobox and the work to improve the article gets infinitely easier for everyone involved.

With regards to the number of shows a series has had I go by how many have been broadcast, rather than how many have been created, there doesn't seem to be a guideline on what to do with this and I'm trying to be consistent. However, if there is a guideline I'd love to see it!

However, the errors you pointed out are a bit too numerous to ignore. I am definitely using imdb.com and tv.com as sources as they allow me to get the information I need for the infobox quickly. As there are some obvious problems with these do you have any alternative suggestions?

Thanks for pointing this out to me. If you find anything else please let me know! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one expects perfection. There will always be spelling errors, markup problems, wrong wikilinks, non-compliance to the MoS, etc. However, knowingly adding new information of which you have no idea of its validity is completely different, and detrimental to the integrity of Wikipedia. If you don't want to do the research, then perhaps you could fill out the infobox with what's already in the article, and leave the rest for another editor.

According to the documentation for the Template:Infobox Television the number of episodes produced is what should go in the infobox.

As far as sources go, WikiProject Television has recently started compiling a list of reliable sources, but it's nowhere near a useful stage yet. In the mean time, searching Google news and Google books is fairly easy, and even though you are usually limited in how much of the article you can read, sometimes that's all you need. You could also do a site search. That's what I did in my example for you with History vs. Hollywood. The article said it aired in the U.S. so I searched a couple major U.S. publications. My Google site search of Variety magazine looked like this:

site:variety.com "History vs. Hollywood"

And then I did another site search of the Los Angeles Times which looked like this:

site:latimes.com "History vs. Hollywood"

Both sites have been useful in the past so I search them with many of the U.S. TV articles I edit. They dont always pay off, but sometimes they do. Hope that helps. Sarilox (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help with this! I really appreciate it. I will proceed with due caution. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Manhattan, AZ

Hello Sarilox. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Manhattan, AZ, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: copyvio can be removed without having to delete the whole article. Thank you. So Why 12:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Over the Top (TV series)

On January 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Over the Top (TV series), which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lockup

Hi there. I was wondering why you removed this:

Lockup, a marketing/branding term implying the final version of a company's logo

It's a term I recently encountered in a graphic design context, which I considered somewhat obscure, but its inclusion on Wikipedia confirmed to me that it's valid. FrancoisJordaan (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the Lock up disambiguation page because there was no article about it, nor did any of the articles linked in the description use the term. A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. Disambiguation pages are for linking to articles that share a particular title, or for linking to articles that use that term in a meaningful way. The use of the term lockup as you've demonstrated above does not appear to be used on Wikipedia, and therefore does not belong on a disambiguation page. This is in keeping with the manual of style for disambiguation pages. If you can find a reliable source that defines this term in this way, then perhaps you could add it to the logo article or whatever article seems most appropriate. Then you could link to that article from the disambiguation page. Sarilox (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once a Ranger

The fact that the book was published before the episode aired should not mean anything. The Japanese publishers for similar television programs publish content that does not appear in the television shows until weeks later. Also, the significance of the episode is stated within the article (being celebratory of the 15th anniversary of the franchise). I'm not sure where to find the reception/ratings for this particular episode.

And other than the reception and significance, what is wrong about having plot summary in an article about TV episodes?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at the AfD where this discussion belongs. Sarilox (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

...on some terrific work at Joe Bash! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did most of the work; I just cleaned it up. Sarilox (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check them now please!

Boy on Fire / Steel-Eyed Death. --SVU4671 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Meet the Natives: USA

Hello! Your submission of Meet the Natives: USA at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Storye book (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Meet the Natives: USA

On 30 March, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Meet the Natives: USA, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Talk pages is now open for business!

You are receiving this message because you indicated support for this project or commented on its proposal.

If you are interested in being part of the Talk Page Cleanup Crew, then go stick your name on the list! Any help, thought, comment, advice, or suggestion you can give is welcome.
Note: Some things are still under construction.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 03:39, 1 June 2010 (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) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Proposed deletion of Extreme Evidence

The article Extreme Evidence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Entirely WP:PRIMARY, nothing secondary found

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]