User talk:SchrutedIt08/Archive 1

Hello SchrutedIt08, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. --Blooded Edge^awards 11:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season 1 of Caprica

Just wanted to say thank you for keeping the page updated - you keep beating me to updating the viewer stats (very sad - I really hope NBC considers DVD sales/online viewing and renews the show for a second season) - Zeleres at 0:13 AM EST

You're more than welcome, just trying to help out a bit. If you want to include the ratings, I won't do it anymore. I only do it because no one else had yet. I don't mind if you want to be like the "ratings guy." SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Fourth Man in the Fire

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Fourth Man in the Fire, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fourth Man in the Fire. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Powers ^T 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of True Blood episodes

Why are you making a link to the year 21 in List of True Blood episodes? - see MOS:UNLINKDATES; and why are you making the number of episodes bold? - see MOS:BOLD. I'd prefer not to revert you if are are willing to correct this yourself. Thanks. --RexxS (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Files seasons

You don't need to have it the way you want it! See List of Stargate SG-1 episodes which is a FL. Let's discuss this further and don't revert me. Let's discuss this and come to an conclusion. Okay? --TIAYN (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 of True Blood.

You may want to edit here. Once season two finishes then the page can be made live. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True Blood improvements.

As the finale approaches this may be the time to get ready to clean up all the various pages. I have the second season page ready here and the list of minor characters here. The template needs tidying and the episode summaries for the second season here and here need to be shortened. Plus once the fates of all the characters are revealed then the minor characters need to be stripped from here and the main characters need to be checked to remove any trivia. Any help would be appreciated. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With a fortnight to the finale I suggest making some big moves in preparation, first create the minor characters, then remove the minor characters, create the second season, then transclude the episode summaries from the episode list and then change the cast and characters on the main page to match the layout of The Wire. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual True Blood episodes

There is a current consensus to not have individual episodes of TV programs (although The Wire, Lost, Family Guy and others have them). The reason for this is because at worst they are just a plot with nothing else, however if you look at Lost you can see the sites that are acceptable for use on episodes. These include these [1], [2], [3], [4]. And provided that the episodes are more than just a plot then they should be able to be completed. I am thinking that once the finale goes out tomorrow that it may be worth finding sources that review True Blood (and the second season has been well covered due to the big ratings) and gradually working back through the 24 episodes. If you are interested let me know. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second season will be easy, given the amount of coverage the last episode is already getting. I think wait for the last episode to go out, then search for interviews with the cast and reviews, use the structure of the Simpsons episodes as the basis. Most of the Simpsons stuff is taken from commentaries, so for the first season that could be used. As ever I'll throw it into a sandbox. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:SchrutedIt08/Beyond here lies nothin is started. Put the stuff in there. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[5] and [6] have links to stuff about the last episode. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on the whole (C) issues of screengrabs. Find a TV episode that has a grab, then check the details of the picture. If it is low enough quality, so as to not be a commercial threat, then you may be able to use one, check with TV FAs, becuase if an FA can use them then other articles should be able to. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition metacritic has a good list of reviewers, for other episodes in both seasons [7]. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think once the ratings and remaining guest cast are added that the page will be ready to go live, and once it is in the main space then the article link on the picture and the imdb link at the bottom will need to be checked. Good work. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:True Blood

I have looked into it, turns out it needs a lot of effort and at the moment there are only four or five regular editors and most WP require around ten. I think that the current system of leaving messages on other users pages may actually be quicker. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2.11 is here. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on cleveland show list edits

It was smart what you did transcluding the two pages, however when I try that technique with the family guy episodes I get much more info than I want. Can you help with that? I basically want the same thing that you did with the cleveland show where its basically the same but removings the ratings and summaries when it appears on the main page. Let me know if you understand this at all.... thanks Grande13 (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to do it with Season 1 of the family guy episodes list but with no luck...Grande13 (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah it can work on cleveland show too if we can get rid of the ratings category...Grande13 (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had tried it on the family guy page and it was bringing in more info than was just on the episode list tableGrande13 (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i've messed around with it a little more and still have no luck getting it to work for family guy. Any help?Grande13 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work although I noticed Season 4 is the only season that actually has tv ratings included. have you figured out how to remove those yet?Grande13 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are going through all the family guy seasons now to make them good articles, and if they can find the season ratings info they are going to include it. I'm probably going to holdoff on the cleveland one until we can see if there is a way to exclude the ratings...Grande13 (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of FlashForward (season 1)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is FlashForward (season 1). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashForward (season 1). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parks and Recreation (season 1)

Hey SchrutedIt08. (Awesome username, by the way.) Thanks for your additions to the Parks and Recreation (season 1) article. I found this bit particularly helpful: "Cawley left the show at the end of the first season to create the short-lived ABC sitcom Hank, starring Kelsey Grammer. The others all returned as writers and producer for Parks and Recreation's second season." However, at the moment it's uncited. I don't doubt it's true, but do you know of any sources for them? If you don't have a source for the last sentence, we could probably get away with an inline citation explaining that all the names (minus Cawley) are in the credits to the second season premiere "Pawnee Zoo". But there's no getting around the fact that we need a source citation for the Hank bit... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say let's go ahead and use that TV Squad source for now. If we find something better letter we'll replace it, but that'll do for now. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:204 shake and fingerpop b.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:204 shake and fingerpop b.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:True blood 212 frenzy.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:True blood 212 frenzy.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parks and Recreation (season 2)

Hey SchrutedIt08. I've made a page for Parks and Recreation (season 2) and wanted to point out that, like I did with season one, I moved the episodes box (which I think you created) from List of Parks and Recreation episodes into the Season 2 page, cut the summaries from the List article, then added "See also" links to both pages. I figured you would be fine with this since you didn't object when I did it for season 1, but I still wanted to bring it to your attention. Let me know if that's cool... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy

Why did you remove air date references? CTJF83 chat 19:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. I simply moved them into the title field to make them title references. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, perhaps an edit summary in the future would avoid confusion. :) CTJF83 chat 03:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe "Unearthed"

Nice compromise. Thanks for working with. Padillah (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to be helpful. Hopefully others will agree with the compromise. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Office banker.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Office banker.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fringe (season 2)

Boy, I wonder why you removed the link to www.fox.com/fringe/_recaps in this edit. Maybe because it points to a source directly contradicting your edit?

And I am expected to assume good faith on your part now? --91.55.229.65 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the episode first aired, there was some debate as to whether or not we should include it in the season one episodes or the season two episodes, as it is technically an episode written and filmed for the first season. A consensus was reached between other users and myself to leave it in the season two episodes, but not to include it in the episode count for that season. I was simply honouring that consensus. But if this is the way you want it, fine. I'm not interested in getting into a childish editing war with you. I was simply doing what was agreed upon back in January. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read it twice, but I don't think you explained why you removed the link to the source contradicting your edit. I guess it's because of this childish edit war which clouds my mind. --91.55.229.65 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The X-Files episodes

Hello. The page has always been the same and people had no complaints about it. I think it's helpful (and not pointless) to have a short summary of the episodes right there, instead of having to click on the articles to go to an specific season... and yes, I do now that that makes the page too long. Besides, do you realize that the tables are incorrect? Instead of 'Season #', it should say 'Episode #' (for the season). CGLF (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you don't agree at all, as you've said. So I just shut up about it? You say it's just my opinion as if it doesn't matter or it doesn't make a difference. Well, it is just your opinion how the page looks now. You have no more power in this than I do, and viceversa. You didn't understand what I said about the 'Season #' and 'Episode #' thing. There are differences between season, series and episode. Your changes state that the episodes are seasons. You are listing the episodes (per se) as seasons. That is incorrect. It should say the episode number (per season) so people will know which episode number it is... again, per season. You are just listing the episodes consecutively, instead as per season.

Why should I bring a third party to this? You are just making changes and don't accept other's people changes or P.O.Vs... well, at least not mine. My opinion is just as important as yours, you are expressing yourself as if mine doesn't matter and yours do. You don't even agree to minor changes I pointed out in the previous message! And you are the only one changing the whole page, many people have come (and still do) to this page and only make minor changes. Although, I'm not sure how many people agree with the current version, and how many disagree.

Yes, the article is long, but I think it's more comfortable to have all the summaries in the same place than having to go to other pages. I still see many TV shows that have ep. summaries in the same page. For ex.: Criminal Minds.

And when you made all these changes (major changes) you never once specified it in the reason for editing.CGLF (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other pages have changed doesn't mean they all have to. The fact that I alone disagree with the current page, doesn't mean I am the only one. I know it's neater this way, but I think the other way is simpler. You said it youself, you have seen the changes on other pages, but you have been changing the pages now aswell. The fact that you are changing them (or other people are) doesn't mean that everyone agrees, nor it means everyone agrees with my opinion.

I might be the first person you see who disagrees with the summaries thing (but I doubt it) and I don't like the way yoiu keep pointing out how I'm the only one with a problem with it. You don't need to have it the way you want it, nor do I. But you are not accepting other's P.O.Vs.CGLF (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's hypocritical because I've mentioned several times that my P.O.V is not better than yours and viceversa. I've only stated my opinion and you were always refuting it because, apparently, everyone is doing what you are doing. I said several times that you were not accepting my opinion at all and you nver denied it, so I find it interesting how you just said something about it after I said you wanted to get it the way you wanted it. I never really said I didn't like your version, I only said that I though that it was better to have the ep. summaries and about the Season # thing, etc. I think I was specific, but I'm never going to say "change it back" because I am no one to say that, nor is you. I'm not complaining because it's not the way I want it, or just for the sake of it, I only care about the summaries. I think it's easier to find them right here, with just a click away, than having to look for it... in a way. I don't want to get my way, I am willing to talk about it like an adult. And if I did, I'd have changed it by now... and I didn't. You have your opinion and I have mine, I think the 'dislike' is mutual, not just mine. You are speaking of my as a child, and I'm not.CGLF (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P&R GANs?

Hey SchrutedIt08. You may have noticed that I have a number of Parks and Recreation articles nominated for GA over at WP:GAN at the moment. Perhaps you'd like to review one or two? You're under no obligation, but if you're interested, I'd appreciate it! (Also, I know this goes without saying, but just to get it on the record, I'm not looking for a rubber-stamp or easy-pass, just a straight honest review. Thanks!) — Hun ter Ka hn 07:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you feel that way! Some people get annoyed when asked to do a review, so I'm glad you don't feel that way instead! lol. Feel free to ask me any questions about the GAN review process if you like; we could always use reviewers as the backlog is often pretty backed up. I should also make sure you know, too, that I'm participating in the WP:WikiCup, so I'll be claiming points for any GAs that pass. I point this out because I want to stress that I don't want you to just quick-pass my articles just because we get along or because we both are interested in the subject matter. Please be honest in your review, and don't hesitate to tell me if something sucks or not! lol — Hun ter Ka hn 14:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fg season pages

It only causes confusion to have two columns with the exact same heading as i'm sure people will be confused where to put each episode number. Also, there was no reason the change the order. Since its the season page the column on the left should be the season episode count since that what you see first. Regardless your other changes have been good and I know you have good intentions so keep up the good work Grande13 (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brian Buckner

The article Brian Buckner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unreferenced BLP

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding seasons

I know you are trying to help but there was consensus against transcluding to episode lists at the featured list candidacy (previously they did transclude). It is now advised that featured episode lists do not transclude. As such I have undone your changes. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Fringe_s2_BD.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Fringe_s2_BD.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Fringe_S1_BLU_early.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Fringe_S1_BLU_early.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burn Notice articles

I reverted the reverts to the format of the tables on the season pages of Burn Notice. You are right, it does expand the columns. However, in keeping with the format of other similar articles, I changed it back to read "Series #" and "Season #". To me, it's very confusing for it to just read "#", even with the explanation. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to do so on my talk page. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I didn't want to make a big deal out of nothing either. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy

What's your reasoning for the overly detailed plot summaries? CTJF83 pride 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought of them as overly detailed, the more detail the better I think. Besides, my restoration of the summaries was incidental to another edit. If you have a problem with them, I suggest you bring it up with the user who wrote them in the first place, which is not me. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did revert though...but after looking at Simpsons FL The Simpsons (season 8) for example, the FG ones have good length. CTJF83 pride 05:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip Girl ratings

Hello, since you're the one who has a problem that the ratings are unsourced. Can't you add the ratings? Here is the site: [www.tvbythenumbers.com]. You'll have to go back years to find all that. However, if you don't have any objections I can remove the templates. I assure you the ratings are accurate. Everytime the source was added weekly, the following week it was deleting. It go annoying. But they are all correct. Jayy008 (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you know they are correct, without proper sourcing it's all speculation. And, for the record, it isn't me that has a problem with the ratings being unsourced, it's the Wikipedia guidelines. You yourself are not a reliable source. If you want the ratings included they must be referenced, otherwise the citation template needs to stay or the ratings must be removed entirely. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm well aware of Wikipedia regulations. They were sourced but always get removed. The reliable website of ratings has them all as I said, why didn't your source them? Before going on a major template spree, rather than leaving the work to somebody else. Jayy008 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do it myself, because at the time I was too busy to sort through three odd years of pages to find the appropriate ratings. At least citing the problem brought it to the attention of other editors so that someone else with the time and enthusiasm to find the sources could do so. And it seems to have worked, since somone has gone and added all the necessary sources. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it has. Somebody has added sources for the whole of season 3 very quickly. I may take your approach in future. Jayy008 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Somebody keeps reverting season 3 episodes to include too much unnecessary detail and personal interpretation ("heartbroken"). What to do? Thanks.Ravenscroft32 (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing you can do really is put an invisible notation on the page, reminding people to keep the summaries between four to six lines (or less than 500 words). Other than that, I don't think there's much to be done other than keeping an eye on it and reverting when people put too much in. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do an invisible notation, unfortunately. I don't want to get stuck in some edit war though.Ravenscroft32 (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't revert it again, I'll be in violation.Ravenscroft32 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could leave a message on their talk page, as it does seem to be the same person doing it. And invisible notations are easy, I've put one on the titles for episodes 3.01 and 3.07 because people kept changing them back to their working titles. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd thought of that, but don't know what to put without appearing petty!Ravenscroft32 (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would appear petty. I think all of The X-Files season pages have an invisible note about length of plot, since people kept adding unnecessary details. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant petty about leaving a message. It's just been reverted again. Maybe the article should be locked? Ravenscroft32 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know how to do that, but if you feel it's necessary then go for it. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, but I know somebody who does! I did put in the invisible notice as you suggested - copied from another series, so thanks for that tip. Don't know if it will do any good. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi, i'm sorry but I don't understand why the ratings for the 3x09 should be 4.99? Because it's 4.996 and it's closer to 5.000 than 4.990. it's math... (19 August 2010)

For the simple fact that Wikipedia is not a calculator, and that 4.99 is closer to being accurate than a rounded 5 mil. It is traditional that numbers are rounded up or down to only one place. Changing 4.996 to 5.00 is less accurate, in this mathematical model, than 4.99. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Walkingdead.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Walkingdead.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Glee episodes and Glee (season 1)

Please do not restore transclusion between these two articles. Frickative and myself were successful in having Glee (season 1) promoted to featured list, but one of the concerns raised was transclusion between articles, which is something that is frowned upon evidently in these types of articles. This was news to me as well as I like the transclusion idea, but it can be dissuading to newer editors who might want to add information. Thus, please do not restore any form of transclusion to these two articles as it will be reverted. Such an addition may cause Glee (season 1) to no longer qualify as a featured list and we worked hard on getting that promoted (it even was considered the best of the week in that week's Signpost). So please...no more transclusion at these articles. CycloneGU (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't realise that's what was going on. Can we at least change the foratting of the season one tables to be consistent with the ones for season two? SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Season 2 is still transcluded. Right now that's all right, but we'll have to nip that sooner or later.

I have changed the season 1 table headers in a few places to match the season 2 table headers. Is this what you had in mind? CycloneGU (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a citation

Hi. On the List of Law & Order: Los Angeles episodes page, where you inserted the ratings, you removed a citation supporting the episode was inspired by Charles Manson.[8] I'm not sure why you did that, but it's been restored. Please check what citations you're removing in the future. Thanks. Mike Allen 07:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weeds episode page

Episode plot summaries need more detail. See talk page for Weeds episodes.

The Good Guys

I have noticed you have been rather diligent about swapping out the overnight for the final ratings on The Good Guys. The problem with that is that the article uses overnight ratings. The finals are not available from a source considered reliable by Wikipedia standards for the first half of the show. While it causes me great pain to have reverted one of your more recent edits there to a lower number (yes, finals were higher than overnight) i still did it for consistency of the data presented. The early episodes aired in the summer. Pretty much noöne cares about summer scripted ratings so finals are not published anywhere other than pifeedback. In case you are not aware, pifeedback is soooo not an acceptable source. Hence overnight ratings on The Good Guys. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 02:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i should let you know that i tracked down finals references for the 13 episodes of The Good Guys that you hadn't put in previously. The list is now finals instead of overnights so feel free to swap out overnights for finals as they come available in the future. cheers delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, cool. Cheers for that. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parks and Recreation (season 3)

Hey, long time no see! I am indeed still interested in keeping up on P&R Wikipedia articles. In fact, I planned to make that third season article myself in the next few days, and at the moment I'm waiting to get the season 2 DVD from Netflix so I can listen to the commentaries for The Master Plan (Parks and Recreation) and Freddy Spaghetti. Then I'm hoping to get those up to GA so Parks and Recreation (season 2) can be brought to good topic. But I do have some info about season 3, so I'll try to add that to the article very soon. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 05:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dyk

Hi. I've nominated The Walking Dead (season 1), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Venustas 12 (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks for letting me know. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Please use edit summaries when making changes to articles, such as the one you made to List of Medium episodes (season 7). See WP:FIES. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WalkingDeadSeason1DVD.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WalkingDeadSeason1DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 07:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

running wilde

hi thanks for your edit there i dont know why that user was so sure of themselves since they couldnt have seen the episode right? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P&R season 3

Hey! Just wanted to let you know I added a bit to Parks and Recreation (season 3) and nominated it for DYK, with you credited as the article creator. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 02:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Parks and Recreation (season 3)

On 14 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Parks and Recreation (season 3), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Formatting

When editing a table on a season page of a TV show, why is the # symbol beneath the words "Series" and "Season"? I just noticed that you'd moved them down on each "Psych" table (see season 1 or season 2). Is it because it fits easier on a smaller screen? I was just wondering; it looks a little strange on a bigger monitor. Kevinbrogers (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically it. It's pointless having such a wide column for information that takes up so little space, especially in the case of something like Psych where the episode titles themselves are so long. If it were up to me there wouldn't be "Series" and "Season", just the "#" but some people find that confusing. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That "redundant scheduled crap".

Fair warning as the editor who included that "crap" (and has no problem whatsoever with it's removal); another editor I've never seen before, Bbb23 complained on the Medium (season 7) talk page page complaining that the episodes themselves shouldn't be included because they haven't happened yet. I don't know what he thinks sources are for, but he was adamant about it, railing against myself, delirious & lost and _Xeworlebi. He claimed to seek consensus, but when he didn't get it, he ran straight to Ea/R (apparently his other home page). An admin there supported his position, claiming the inclusion was a "Plain and blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL". He was advocating a separate table for unscheduled information, which could have turned into an actual policy requirement if Bbb23 had continued to pursue it. My proposal was only meant to offer a simple solution that would fit on the table as is so we wouldn't one day soon have to overhaul every single episode article with a separate table for future date episodes (probably not much different than the Unscheduled episodes sections on Fox's animations, but with all of the date, writer and director information *ugh*). Again, I did so reluctantly (see my comments HERE), and am with you on the reversion, but Bbb23, who seems to have claimed ownership of Wiki policy, may revert it back, and you may need to decide if you want to resume this battle, or leave this one nugget of crap until it dries up and blows away on its own (4 wks to go, and the finale airs). KnownAlias contact 14:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of BBb23 and his position. The edit was made in a moment of anger, I'm just getting sick of how bureaucratic Wikipedia has gotten these last couple of years. I have no plans on reverting my own edit, as I do think having "scheduled" written for upcoming episodes is insultingly idiotic, but I also have no plans on starting an edit war. When you come up against these kinds of people, usually the only thing to do is back off because there's just no changing their minds. Why is it that the stupidest people are always the most sure that they're right? SchrutedIt08 (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Cause no one hangs around to tell them they're wrong; when you're smart, there just comes a point when you give up, walk away and do something productive (preaching to the choir, brother). KnownAlias contact 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Walking Dead (season 1)

On 22 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Walking Dead (season 1), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that zombie apocalypse drama The Walking Dead was named as one of the top 10 television programs of 2010 by the American Film Institute? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Tree Hill

I really don't appreciate your brashness and rudeness in your edit summary. obviously an experienced editor like myself would not make a wrong edit on purpose. I didn't realise that the ref names wouldn't work, clearly. Jayy008 (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me a little while to respond to this, I went to get my violin. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find it? I hope so. Maybe you should learn some good faith. You're obviously not very smart. Jayy008 (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glee Super Bowl episode

Hi there. I noticed you recently moved the episode page, claiming "Super Bowl Episode" is the title. Where is the source for this? Yves (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that reliable, though? It does list the previous episode as "Repeat TBA": one could argue this is a placeholder name, but same goes for "Super Bowl Episode", as well as "Episode 12", "Episode 13", and "Episode 14". I doubt the episode will be called "Super Bowl Episode". Yves (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it

Please stop bolding the number of aired episodes. You are the only one who does that and it violates the MoS. I am really really getting sick of your denseness and unwillingness to accept established customs around here. Just cut it out. --87.79.119.97 (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're hostile. Someone forgot to take their meds this morning. I'm more than happy to stop, but only because you're such a well-mannered and eloquent speaker. I look forward very much to our future collaborations. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVE assessments

Hey SchrutedIt08. Thanks for making Dean Holland, I've been planning on making that one for some time, and now I don't have to! :D Let me know if you need help working it up to DYK status. Anyway, the reason I'm writing to you is to let you know that I've recently arranged for the WikiProject Television's Episode Task Force to have an assessment table so we can get a sense of how many television episode articles need work and which ones don't. However, since it's brand new, a lot of articles are unassessed. I've been assessing some myself, but since you're so active in television articles, I thought maybe you'd like to help me? It involves adding "episode-coverage=" and "episode-coverage-importance=" to the WikiProject Television box. Let me know what you think. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I've been picking a show that I feel I know pretty well, going into the talk pages of all the relevant articles (episodes, seasons and lists of episodes) and adding the above categories to the WikiProject Television templates. See examples of some I did here and here.) I basically follow the rule of thumb that not-so-important articles get "low" importance, articles important to the series only get "mid", and episodes that achieved fame outside the series get "high". (I honestly haven't given too many highs yet.) — Hun ter Ka hn 05:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, David Rogers (film editor)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, David Rogers (film editor). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Dean Holland. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Dean Holland - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cind.amuse 08:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]