User talk:Alex 21/Archive 35

Teen Titans: Fear in Florida

Is that a real movie and if so, how did you find out about it? Joet51078 (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Joet51078: Apologies, but what are you talking about? -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

SVU: Season 2: Episode: Manhunt 2001

In the Begining, if Posibl why did [Daryl Kern] leave his Budy Marvin behind on Streets?(73.235.66.78 (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).

Sorry, but I've never seen the show, so I have no idea. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your name was In the Revision History of SVU Season 2 Episodes becuz You edited something?(73.235.66.78 (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).

Yeah, with this edit, which was an automated edit made seven months ago. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Supergirl episode list

Hi, i don't understand why you allways undo the edit that i make on the episode list. What i write there, is information taken directly from that same page. I would like it, if we could resolve this without continuing this edit war.

Sincerely, TheGamingMouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGamingMouse (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

TheGamingMouse, because the final episode listed in the episode table is not the final episode of the season. It's just the latest episode that we have information for. The season will likely have 22 or 23 episodes, we just simply don't have the information for episodes #16 through to #22 or #23. You have nothing to support that episode 15 will be the season finale. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The Paternoster Gang (audio drama)

Please don't remove tag without improving the article. The second review in fact advised that I wait for some time before nominating. Nothing has changed in the article, there is no more sources added. It will be nominated agin if no more sources are found. Add more sources if you want to remove the tag. Hzh (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, the tag has been updated to correct the usage, which is to "add more references if [I] want to remove the tag". Hence, the correct tag is "more citations needed". The fact remains that you tried to have this article deleted twice, and it failed twice, so clearly notability is not an issue but your personal opinion. Gain a consensus for it, because at the moment, you do not have one. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The notability of the article is still under dispute. Nothing has changed. Hzh (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, where is it currently under dispute? -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Per previous discussions. Please note that the review did not say that the article is notable, the advice by some contributors is that in fact I may nominate it for deletion again, but simply that I should wait some time first. Hzh (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, both of those discussions are over and closed with no consensus, and hence are no longer currently putting the article under dispute. Nominate it as you wish, but there is no current discussion disputing the article. Is there? -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No consensus does not mean there is no dispute (in fact it does mean there is dispute). As I said, the advice is to wait before nominating. If you wish to participate in a meaningful manner, then add more sources. Removing tag without addressing the issue raised is disruptive. Hzh (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, sure, it can mean there is dispute. And there certainly was at the time of the discussions, but there is no current dispute at the current time. You can wait, but that still doesn't change that there is still no current discussion disputing the article. There is no issue to address. There is no consensus that the article has limited notability. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The tag reflects the state of the article at a time when there was concern about the issue. If nothing has changed with the sources provided, then the tag stays. This is true for any tag, even the more references tag you added. If no one adds any more sources or improves the article in any way, then the tag stays, however long it may take. It stays current because nothing has changed. Hzh (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, it does reflect the state at that time. And that time has passed with, again, no consensus to support it. There's no agreement that the article lacks notability. The article currently has limited citations, hence the citations tag. The article does not currently have a discussion disputing the article's notability, hence the lack of a notability tag. Yes, nothing has changed since the first deletion nomination - there is no agreement of a lack of notability, you cannot state that anything has been given support since that first deletion nomination. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You did not read the discussions correctly, given that there was a clear majority in favour of deletion. The closer chose to considered it no consensus (a decision disputed in the review), but advise that I wait for some time before nominating it again. In any case if there is no consensus, then the tag should be kept. The tag should only be removed when there is consensus to keep. Hzh (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask you, do you actually intend to improve the sourcing of the many of these articles? Hzh (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, a possible majority, sure. An agreement that formed into a consensus, no. If there was, the article would have been deleted. The decision was disputed, but that too came to no agreement and no consensus. If there is no consensus, then the tag should be kept? Is that a policy, or just a personal opinion? And I do, especially after the first series is released. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

A consensus is different from support, which is what you said - you cannot state that anything has been given support. There was indeed clear support, the closer chose to ignore that. I will repeat the question, do you in fact intend to improve the sourcing of this and other articles? Hzh (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, exactly. You cannot state that anything has been given support for deletion of the article, because the article is still there. What the closer decided to do is irrelevant; there is still no current discussion disputing the article, there is no agreement of a lack of notability. Already answered the question. Other articles, possibly. Do you intend to do the same, or are you just here to tag and delete (i.e. the opposite reason for Wikipedia's collaborative existence)? -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I need to repeat this, it stays current because nothing has changed, and a no consensus do not change that, in fact it affirms it (otherwise it would have been deleted/redirected/merged/ or kept). There are millions of articles in Wikipedia, my job here is to assess whether something is notable enough to stay, it is not for me improve these articles I checked (although I actually do sometimes improve the articles I curated). In this case, there is nothing for me to improve because I cannot find the sources needed. It is for someone like you who claim that these articles are notable to demonstrate it because I cannot see it. I will just note that the tag was there, and is still there in many of the poorly-sourced articles, and that you are perfectly aware of the issue. If you don't improve them, that will be taken as something deliberate should the next deletion discussion come up for these articles. Hzh (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, I agree, nothing has changed. There is no difference in the status of the article's notability, no consensus that supports any difference, between the article's creation and now. Nobody here has a "job". Everyone's "job" is to edit collaboratively to expand and improve Wikipedia. Simply tagging and deleting articles without putting any effort into them, or even worse, deliberately not putting effort into them, is more disruptive and detrimental than anything else. It's not up to me to improve the article either, but I'm planning to do so because I want to. If you don't improve the article either, as you are just as perfectly aware, then I will quote this discussion as you not wanting to, and simply wanting to delete articles and not maintain Wikipedia's sole objective. Either way, this discussion is not going anywhere further, so no further comments are required from you here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Redlink remover edit request

Hi. Would you be willing to change else window.location = window.location.href.substr(0, window.location.href.indexOf('#'))+"?action=edit"; to use ?action=submit";? This ~should~ have no effect on editors using the legacy 2006 editor, but for those like me using the 2010 one submit brings them to the 2006 interface, where the script works. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, I'm confused as to the change does? The update in the window.location is to send the editor to the edit page, not the submit page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: for users with the 2010 editor, sending them to action=edit opens that editor, where the script doesn't work, but action=submit sends them to the 2006 interface, where it does. At least for me, when I tried it and got to action=edit, I manually set it to action=submit, and then the script worked fine. It did not automatically save the page, but rather just brought up the older editor where wpTextbox1 still works. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You'd have cleared the whole TPE list if it weren't for the one outstanding which I'm dealing with. Sorry to mess with your perfect record there. Cabayi (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Ha, no problems. I had nothing better to do and noticed it had become backlogged. I saw that one and thought it'd be best to leave it. Good luck. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox school district

Hello, I think you have made a mistake in a change you made on infobox school district. You changed an Infobox section title from "District Information" to "NCES District ID". Instead, you should have changed label22 from "District ID" to "NCES District ID". — Archer1234 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Archer1234, fixed. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Template: Friendly Search Suggestions

I created this template a while back. I have been able to expand the template with more sources...until now. I don't have permission to edit a template I created? Can you help me get in to edit add other sources? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 20:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), if it's been protected, then only administrators and template editors can make changes to it, regardless of who created it, as nobody owns their created templates. If you make the changes in the template sandbox (and also let me know which template it is), I can look into making the changes for you! -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Great! Will you try this: * [https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?datefilter=All%20Since%202005&query={{urlencode:{{{1|{{SUBPAGE}}}}}"}}&sort=Relevance&utm_term=.6fe6d3c7e7d1 Washington Post]

Thank you. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 23:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you make me a template editor? I only intend to work on search templates. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 23:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Edit done. And I cannot; you can read about templates editors at WP:TPE, and request the flag at WP:RFP/TE. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Barbara (WVS): Alex 21 can't do that because he's not an admin. The proper venue to request Template Editor status would be Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I said. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much. If this gets slightly tedious, I will ask for the right. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 17:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Barbara ✐ and /Alex/₂₁: FYI, there are some mistakes in the change that was made. See Template_talk:Friendly_search_suggestions for more information on the mistakes and a suggested correction. — Archer1234 (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Cite error

Hi, I tried to repair a cite error on "List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes", but I had a suspicion it was not quite correct. Strangely enough, I just had to work out a similar footnote on a different wiki, and I know what I did wrong. You reverted my attempt, but the cite error is back. It reads, "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Futon" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)." I will let you fix it this time. Regards Therin of Andor (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Therin of Andor, at List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes? There is no such error. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Edit Request Barnstar
	Thank you for the help with my multiple simultaneous edit requests! DannyS712 (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: No problems! Glad to help out. Just emptying out CAT:ETP. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you and JJMC89 - I filed like 50 template-protected edit requests over the last few days, including >30 in the last few hours, and yet the category is empty! --DannyS712 (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, no worries. I just finished my three assignments, so I've got nothing better to do. Regarding your comment here, the entries of WP:TPEGRANT are listed as "general guidelines"; given your contribution value and technical expertise, I have a feeling that you would be accepted quickly if you applied for the TE right. You could most definitely list down a multitude of sandbox edits and template-protected requests. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've only made around 80 template-protected edit requests. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, to submit a request for the right, you only need to submit "at least five significant edits to template-protected templates". I recall struggling to find five for myself when I requested the right, but I achieved it. Eighty is quite a significant amount. It's up to you, of course, but I would strongly recommend you for the right; you can cite my statements in this discussion, if you'd like. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

yeah, but most of mine aren't "significant" - I'll give it some thought, but if I don't apply / until I do, can I ping you for template-protected edit requests? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, most certainly. Happy to help. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Gotham edits

Hello, Alex21. I gave a reason for removing the columns from the Gotham pages. I was told by another user who monitors the edits, that we should make every effort to save space on the pages. To me, it was a waste of space to use columns as it means that it takes people longer to scroll through the section. For example, with columns, it would take 5 lengths of my phone's screen to view the entire cast of Gotham. Without, it takes 3 lengths. Why would we want it cast to read this way:

Ben Mackenzie as James Gordon

When it can read this way instead:

Ben Mackenzie as James Gordon

Again, trying to save space. Anyway, that's my two cents. Allindsey1978 (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Allindsey1978: I recommend discussing it on the article talk page. Removing the columns causes too much whitespace, and listing them all out in a straight line is what causes the use of too much space and time spent scrolling. Everyone's screens are different, and you should not be basing your edits on just your personal experiences. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Consider

I understand that the IP edit you reverted here was not necessary. But so was your revert. Or is there a special reason you made that revert? Debresser (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Debresser, MOS:TVCAST. Cast must be listed on Wikipedia as they are credited, and they cannot be ordered as any editor would prefer that they be. Stapleton is credited before Alexander, therefore Stapleton is listed before Alexander. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for your reply. Debresser (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doctor Who (series 12), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bowmans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

Not sure if you understood the G6 for Legacies (season 1) here. Legacies (Season 1) was created, but that capitalization of "Season" is never used. Which is why it has to move to Legacies (season 1) which is now a redirect only. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. I saw it was redirected to the main article, which makes sense, seeing how season 2 hasn't even started airing. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Jovanmilic97, yeah, my apologies about that, I recognized its meaning right after I submitted my change but it was too late. However, I did redirect the two articles, as they are nowhere near the quality one would expect from a separate season article, as well as the fact that a draft exists for the first season at Draft:Legacies (season 1). -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

Hello Alex 21, as per WP:BLANKING, the user is allowed to remove this notices, including the {{Dynamic IP}} one. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures

From reading through the history of the series, it is clear that there is one series titled Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures, which switched from an animated to live-action format for its third season, retaining the voice cast from the second season to portray the characters in live-action. Each season had (for the most part a different crew), so there isn't really any reason to keep the articles separate. I do admit that it'll take a small amount of work to explain the transition, but that's what Wikipedia is for, after all. Would you be able to assist me in constructing this page? Hope to hear back from you shortly. MacCready (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

MacCready, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Not correctly referencing information on Brooklyn Nine Nine season 6

Hi Alex, I noticed you left a message on my profile saying that I added information to Brooklyn Nine-Nine (season 6) without a proper reference. I was wondering if you can tell me what my edit was, and what you undid, so I can find a more reliable source to reference? Thanks! -Rebekah

@Thebekahbird: See WP:CITINGIMDB. You cannot cite IMDb for future episodes. And please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ (four tildes). Thanks. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you unaware of procedure at WP:RM/TR?

My page is not a "draft", it's a fully fledged article created in user space that I'm requesting be moved over a redirect. I have page mover rights, but it is considered inappropriate for a user to move a redirect another user created out of the way for their own article based on prior incidents, so I request this when I have created an article at RM/TR. If you think this is not something that can be done at RM/TR, then I suggest you talk to various admins like Anthony Appleyard and Sergecross73, who both have carried this out when it's been requested by users at RM/TR. It is a technical request because I can't delete a redirect outright. If admins consider it appropriate to do, then I can't see why you don't. A user does not have to go through AfC to make an article. Ss112 05:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am a regular contributor to WP:RM/TR. In the future, please submit article drafts through AFC. Thank you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. Don't treat users like newbies who don't know how to make a page through AfC if that's what they wished to do. Considering admins will move my userspace article, I will continue to request it at RM/TR. If you don't wish to move them, leave them for someone you will. If you continue to remove them, then it will become a problem that needs to be addressed. Ss112 20:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Good for you. My method has worked for the years I've been contributing, and it will continue thus, just as the admins have their ways of contributing. Have a good day! -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery

Hi Alex. I don't want to continue this silly argument about the Season 3 section with you, it is because of things like this that I don't spend much time on Wikipedia anymore. The thing that is confusing me the most is that you and I have worked on the MCU TV articles together for years, and every formatting decision I have made while getting the Discovery pages set-up has been copied from those articles that you very much are aware of. So to have you arguing with me as if you have never seen this done before is very confusing to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Adam. I am aware of them, and while I'm not arguing them as such, I'm just raising the fact that their layouts and these practices are out of the ordinary when viewed against the MOS. I've brought up the topic of table-less season sections before, so this isn't a first regarding that. And as I said, I'm not overly worried about the release overview table; I restored it when there was an editor deleting it some time ago. Just raising the fact that compared to almost every other TV series article, these practices are unique to this area of articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

They may be different from some other TV articles, but we do them because they are a better interpretation of the MOS that makes more sense for us coming from TV articles and being used to having so much content and help from other editors. Or at least, that is what I thought we were doing. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Victoria

Hi Alex, I just wanted your opinion. Someone updated the summaries of Victoria and I feel that the original summaries were perfectly fine and the 3rd season's is a bit too long. Think you can check it once you have the chance? Thanks! Mirrorthesoul (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Issues with Episode list

Hey Alex, we seem to have a bug with Module:Episode list. I've tried comparing the versions of the sandbox vs live code, but since the change was a new feature, pin-pointing the issue is a bit hard.

Issues:

{{Episode table |background=#2E5528 |overall= |title= |director= |writer= |episodes=
{{Episode list
| EpisodeNumber        = 2
| NumParts             = 2
| Title_1              = Title1
| Title_2              = Title2
| DirectedBy           = director
| WrittenBy_1          = 1
| WrittenBy_2          = 2
| ShortSummary         = Locke meets the Others' mysterious leader Jacob.
| LineColor            = 2E5528
}}
}}

No.	Title	Directed by	Written by
2	"Title1"	director	1
	"Title2"		2
Locke meets the Others' mysterious leader Jacob.

{{Episode table |background=#2E5528 |overall= |title= |director= |writer= |episodes=
{{Episode list
| EpisodeNumber        = 2
| NumParts             = 2
| Title_1              = Title1
| Title_2              = Title2
| DirectedBy_1         = Director1
| DirectedBy_2         = Director2
| WrittenBy_1          = Writer1
| WrittenBy_2          = Writer1
| ShortSummary         = Locke meets the Others' mysterious leader Jacob.
| LineColor            = 2E5528
}}
}}

No.	Title	Directed by	Written by
2	"Title1"	Director1	Writer1
	"Title2"	Director2	Writer1
Locke meets the Others' mysterious leader Jacob.

I think the issue is at <syntaxhighlight lang="lua" inline>local function createCells(args, isSerial, currentRow, onInitialPage, title, numberOfParameterGroups)"</source >: <syntaxhighlight lang="lua"> local thisRowspan if (firstParameterGroupCell and k < firstParameterGroupCell) then thisRowspan = numberOfParameterGroups else thisRowspan = 1 end if (currentRow == 1 or (currentRow > 1 and k >= (firstParameterGroupCell or 0))) then createTableData(args[v], thisRowspan, textAlign) end </source >

As the sandbox version always passed "1" for the span <syntaxhighlight lang="lua" inline>local function createTableData(args[v], 1, textAlign)</source >

Also this is a bad function:

<syntaxhighlight lang="lua"> -- Local function which is used to retrieve the NumParts value. local function getnumberOfParameterGroups(args) for k, v in ipairs(cellNameList) do local numberedParameter = v .. "_" .. 1 if (args[numberedParameter]) then parameterGroupCells[v] = true if not firstParameterGroupCell then firstParameterGroupCell = k end end end if (hasValue(args.NumParts)) then return args.NumParts, true else return 1, false end end </source >

As the first part has nothing to do with the second one which means it is its own function. I'm not sure if the issues above have to do with parameterGroupCells or firstParameterGroupCell, as the code that uses those seems to be working, but it's worth looking at that as those are the changes in the code. Let me know if you think you know what the issue is as I've only spent an hour or so reviewing the code differences but not actually diving into it. --Gonnym (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, sorry for the late response. Per the notice on my user pages, I'm basically semi-retired from editing here, I only drop it once every few days, but I'll see if I can take a look at the code. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Alex 21/sandbox2 removed per request

I've gone ahead and removed the protection on User:Alex 21/sandbox2. My apologies for the delay, I have been unfortunately rather busy outside of Wikipedia this week. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

addiction to Doctorr Who
... you were recipient no. 1957 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy Birthday JP

Hello A 21 (formerly ATW). Today is the 100th anniversary of Jon Pertwee's birth! Here is a nice interview with Sean. Being the child of any of the actors playing the Dr would be amazing. With Jon's love of gadgets Sean's youth must have been a real treat. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Move warring

For move warring at Good Omens (TV series), I have revoked your page mover permission. Further move warring will result in a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I fail to see the issue here. I moved the article once, and the page has already been protected after I requested it myself. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You moved the page in June, he moved the page back in July, you immediate reverted that move, and he moved it again. Back-and-forth moves like that are disruptive and incompatible with the page mover right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, back in June, where there had been no dispute since. One revert is not warring. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, now that the article's requested move has concluded as no consensus, there is no further disagreement when it comes to the disambiguation of Good Omens (TV series). How would I go about having my page mover permission restored? Thank you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Page movers are supposed to use WP:RM whenever a move is contested. Per WP:PAGEMOVER#Page move disputes: "unilateral decisions should be avoided, and moves should be reverted upon request". If you think you can follow this, make a request at WP:PERM. Having a recent history that shows that you're willing to reverse your actions upon request would probably help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Horizontal ToC

Template:Horizontal ToC has been nominated for merging with Template:Horizontal TOC. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate invocation of BRD

You reverted my edit on the basis that my edit did not have a consensus and that you were restoring the article to the WP:STATUSQUO. The problem here is that the version you restored was not the "status quo" either. The image was changed without discussion and consensus as I explained on the talk page. Furthermore, I was the only editor who actually started a discussion about a change of image. Since nobody objected to my proposal then there was a WP:SILENT consensus for changing the image. As I explain at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Image_in_highest-grossing_films_section consesnus is not "permission" i.e. I do not have to seek permission to the article. You cannot revert an editor simply because an editor has not been given permission by the community; you can only revert an editor if there is a substantive objection to their edit i.e. it goes against policy, it violates the MOS, or there is a consensus for something else.

Also, if you are going to revert in accordance with WP:BRD then you are obligated to join the discussion. You can't just revert and abstain from the discussion because WP:Communication is required. As you can see from the talk page discussion it has advanced to the stage where there is tacit agreement to restore the original image, so in fact your edit not only did not restore the status quo, it actually goes against the evolving consensus on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, discuss it further and cease your edit-warring. Thank you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You are the one edit-warring. There was a dispute between me and another editor. We have discussed it on the talk page and agreed on restoring the original image in the section. You are now editing against the consensus on the talk page, and have also refused to engage in the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, you have been reverted by multiple editors. Take heed and cease edit-warring. No further reply is required here; continue to discuss the topic on the relevant talk page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Betty Logan (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Alex21, you need to come to ANI & explain your behavior. 137.118.149.197 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you still emailing people about me?

Hi, long time no see! I barely remembered who you were until I saw your name show up in the sandbox of someone I had come into conflict with fairly recently. I don't know why he specifically chose to name you and Adamstom rather than any of the other editors I had briefly come into conflict with at various points in 2015-2018, but it seems very likely that the list he is working with was furnished by you. (If it were Adamstom who was responsible, he would almost certainly have mentioned Favre1fan93, and perhaps not mentioned you.)

If you are continuing to monitor me and email editors I come into conflict with, I would ask you to kindly stop.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

As I'm sure you can see, I'm now semi-retired, mostly due to my exhaustion of the bull that editors get put through when being a part of Wikipedia. This is not a productive place. I'm out there, enjoying myself and focusing on the better things life has to offer. So, apologies, but no, you are exceptionally low on my list of things to worry myself about. Go find mindless accusations to make elsewhere, bud. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

So ... are you going to reblank this? It's pretty bad form to restore a message that had been deleted/retracted just to attack the author, then leave it up indefinitely. It borders on WP:POLEMIC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No. You posted a question to my talk page, blanked part of my talk page without my authorization, so I restored it and answered your question. How you interpret it is up to you. If you truly "barely remembered who [I was] until [you] saw [my] name", then stop coming back to my talk page. I've already asked you twice (once, twice) to not post to my talk page. No further response is required here; if you want to reply to me, go back to doing it in your sandbox. Thank you! -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Update {{Arrowverse summary}}

Hey Alex! I know you're not on here much anymore (as with me), but I realized that {{Arrowverse summary}} needs to be updated to handle the Crisis crossover. I gave it an attempt but couldn't quite figure out the coding to make it handle a fifth show. Whenever you get a sec, if you could update it, that'd be great. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, I'll get on it as soon as possible! Its syntax is incredibly complex... I'm wondering if I should have ever created it that way, or if there's a much simpler way. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: All good! Yeah, you can see my attempts in the sandbox trying to get it to work in all instances and grammatically. Perhaps there is a simpler way? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: I actually was able to update the code by changing over to a switch statement. I worked it in the sandbox and testcases and got it to mimic the original code you wrote (with small changes to when "continues"/"concludes" is used). Take a look and let me know what you think. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Favre1fan93: I understand you've solved the ploblem Favre, but I did in my sandbox come up with an alternate way of doing the whole template. My method doesn't rely on a "parts" paramater, and works by first determining how many parameters have been filled, and then working out which parameter the dash (-) is in. It works for up to 6 parts at the moment, and if 7 or more parameters are filled, and/or a dash is never used, the template reads "This episode FAULT.". In case you or Alex wanted to know. --TedEdwards 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Thanks. It doesn't particularly matter to me which method is used. For the immediate, I just wanted to get the template ready to handle the upcoming Crisis crossover. And in my update, I didn't want to "break" the current uses by removing the "parts" parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: While I'm not imposing any method on a group of articles I've never edited, not having a "parts" parameter wouldn't break the template, it would just be redundant, as {{{1}}}, {{{2}}} and {{{3}}} refer to only the unnamed parameters, in that order, so in the hypothetical templates {{t|A=b|c}} and {{t|c}}, the paramater 1= is filled by c, if that makes sense. You're welcome to edit the sandbox if you like, and see what happens if you change the examples (btw. I've removed the error message). --TedEdwards 18:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I see the simplicity in it so you don't worry about the parts parameter. We can see if Alex has an opinion once he is back on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. Go for it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I'm just making sure you noticed Alex's reply, because I'm not sure you have. --TedEdwards 17:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brooklyn Nine-Nine Season 6.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brooklyn Nine-Nine Season 6.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)