User talk:Alex 21/Archive 4

RE: TV Series Overviews

"While your work on adding new rows for the new seasons, please read WP:TVOVERVIEW. Every attempt that you take to do so will be reverted, as new rows do not get added until a season table can be created for the new season. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian 03:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)"

I only added new sections on some shows because I saw people had already done it on a few shows. Sorry for the inconvenience. I will not do this any longer. --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jonathanjoseph81: Other editors shouldn't be doing it on these other shows you mention either. You can revert such edits yourself if you wish, or if you compile a list of TV shows where such edits are occurring, I'll do it myself. Alex|The|Whovian 17:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I will go revert them right now. Thanks for the tip :-) --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

HUMANS

Regarding capitalization, HUMANS metadata specifies all caps. It's on the official page from AMC here. I am working with the metadata for the show and this is the branding for the show. BrillLyle (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: Again, that is simply stylization, even another editor has reverted you so. Official names of series' are not capitalized. Alex|The|Whovian 23:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Defiance

What's wrong with the episode count for each character? is it too early?72.64.207.76 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Not too early, but it's not required and is unsupported by the Method of Style guidelines for television series, and doesn't add further information towards understanding the article in question. Alex|The|Whovian 04:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So do I need to wait until after all the episodes air?72.64.207.76 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No. It's just not required, whether the episodes have aired or not. Alex|The|Whovian 19:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Aired episodes template

Once again, kudos for making a template that can be used for basically copy-pasted text across the TV project. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thanks! I'm wondering if it's possible to create a template for episode table header-rows; we'll see. Alex|The|Whovian 17:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So saw you created the ep table header template. Think it will work, but feel you should find a way to include the '|-' after the template in the template, and then maybe a parameter such as 'episodes=' to then list all the Episode list template, so we can get rid of the '|}' that some users may not realize the would need. So it could be something like: {{Episode header|color=white|background=#B40000|series=5|season=5|title=17|director=11|writer=37|airdate=10|prodcode=6|viewers=9 |country=U.S.|episodes={{Episode list}} }} - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thanks for the suggestions! I was thinking of implementing the '|-', but the episodes= parameter never even came to me, brilliant idea. I've implemented both now, and will look into updating the episode tables of a few television series to test it out properly. Alex|The|Whovian 04:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. That way everything is housed together, and any unknowing IP or other confirmed users will be able to use this template easily. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Got an issue with the template occurring in my sandbox - specifically, adding "Part 1"/"Part 2" colspan'ing rows to tables where the season is split - any good ideas on how to fix it? If not, all good. Disregard; got it! Alex|The|Whovian 12:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wayward Pines

Please do not write again that episode six aired on June 18 in Australia, it's not true according the Australian schedule: http://www.fxtv.com.au/listings/18-06-2015. The official Australian website dedicated to the series also confirms that episode six aired on June 25, like the rest of the world, and not earlier. --Supernino (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Supernino: Fair enough, but then answer this: How did the sixth episode result in being online on June 18 as a result of having aired? Alex|The|Whovian 11:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You should ask that to who distribuited that episode :) I took the liberty to reply here so others don't make the same mistake. Bye, --Supernino (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Supergirl was a leak, Wayward Pines was due to it airing. This example does not apply; please choose another. Alex|The|Whovian 11:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please continue in Talk:Wayward Pines. --Supernino (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Question re: WP:TVINTL

Hi AlexTheWhovian, Apologies for the interruption. I noticed that you reverted an edit at Outlander (TV series), correctly citing WP:TVINTL; having read that MOS section, I thank you for the reversion. I did however, have a question, which I hope you might help me with. The section indicates that we are encouraged to only detail noteworthy foreign broadcasts - which seems like a very good idea.

So that I might be able to better apply this in future, could you help me to understand how the Australia, Canada, and Ireland broadcasts are more noteworthy? The delay of the UK broadcast, potentially over concerns w.r.t the Scottish Independence elections seems to make that broadcast easily noteworthy.

Please note that I am not seeking re-inclusion of the information, just a better understanding of our style guide. Thanks in advance for any advice you might offer. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Hi Ryk72, all good! The standard is that here on the English Wikipedia, we only list countries where English is the main language - other countries that do not fit this criteria should be listed on their respective Wikipedia server. Alex|The|Whovian 21:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

White Canary

I stand corrected. My apologies. 172.88.146.9 (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, all good! Alex|The|Whovian 06:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference name deletions

Hey @AlexTheWhovian: -- while you may not use citation names typically, they are good practice in case the citation can be reused again, and I think it's a good practice to leave them in. I specialize in fixing citations and I've found it's better to have the names than not. Also, deleting content like citation names is not really helpful to other editors. I am not trying to get in an edit war with you but you seem to be making some decisions about deleting content that I don't agree with. Having more citations versus less is never a bad thing. BrillLyle (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: Well, "you seem to be making some decisions about deleting content that I don't agree with" seems to be a very WP:OWN-outlook on the matter. References don't need names if they're not reused - if they are reused at a later date, then names can be used. Else, it's merely clutter and excess usage. Adding up to four citations on a line where you need only one is just as unhelpful to editors as well; it's clutter. Alex|The|Whovian 01:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. This is a brand new show -- how do you know the citations won't be reused. I'm trying to clean up the citations and the use of reference names is a GREAT way to stay organized and differentiate between citations. I don't see the point of deleting something that is a an organizational tool. Especially since there have only been 2 episodes of this show and who knows what information might be referenced in these cited articles. There's no reason to delete clean, well-intentioned edits by other editors like this. It's very hostile and is not adding to the article at all. I totally think you may want to take a step back and rethink this. Also I work on a lot of articles and you are the ONLY person who has made this sweeping decision to delete citation names! BrillLyle (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

And I just want to add that every time you engage in the editing behavior you have done on the Mr. Robot page -- and with the HUMANS show, it shows a lot of ill will towards your fellow editor. I'm going to walk away from this page because you are making this experience truly unpleasant. Maybe think about that. I'd love to edit collaboratively, but not if the contributions I make will be deleted for random reasons, with the argument that less is more -- which I totally disagree with. Again, think about how your edit behavior is coming off. Truly, I mean this in the most constructive, nicest way possible. You have run me off this page and the other page now. Is that your intention? BrillLyle (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: To put it another simpler way, reference names aren't needed until they're reused, else they're just "sitting there". What's they're use? There is no use. Hence, not required. If it's not needed (yet), don't add it. An organization tool, as you put it, is only required when organization is required. In this case, it was not. Just because there have only been two episodes and it's a new show, this is not excuse for unneeded clutter. Hostile would be edit-warring my edits against you, and yet here I am, discussing with you as you tell me what my intentions are and what to do. I work on just as many articles as you do, so what's that meant to mean? That you are more experienced and can do as you wish? And of course I'm the only person so far! You only just put them in, there hasn't been enough time for other editors to come in and do so! And what of your explanation as to why three, or even four, citations are needed in a row for exactly the same information?

Perhaps such "hostile" actions wouldn't have been required on Humans if you had read the Wikipedia guidelines. Alex|The|Whovian 01:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I find this discussion incredibly patronizing. A reference name is like a unique identifier for a reference -- it is both an organizational principle as well as a way to reduce duplications. They serve both the current function of identifying each citation so it can be used, and they serve the future purpose of possible reuse. Every time I create a citation I name it, giving it a unique identifier. It is common practice, it is about organization, usage, etc. Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it's not a legitimate usage and principle. These reference names have absolutely important functions! If you don't understand this and have such concern for how extensive citations are on a page, I think it's something you might want to do research on regarding citations. Deleting content is a terrible idea and I have no patience for editors who remove content like this. You win here, despite my best efforts to educate you on this subject. But please think about this more. I really think you are doing Wikipedia harm by deleting content like this. It creates very bad will towards others and their efforts. And it reduces the amount of time and energy others might want to contribute if you are just going to make these god-like decrees about what content is appropriate or not.

And don't go whipping out your Wikipedia rules and regulations to back up hostile behavior. You are the one creating the bad feelings here. Way to go! I really don't appreciate it. BrillLyle (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: A citation doesn't need a name so it can be used. I could put a second season table in now, but it's not required as of yet, but will be in the future. Same goes with references: I could put a name in now, but it's not required as of yet, but will be in the future. You fail to realize that it's not that it doesn't work for me - it's just not required. They provide no further output on the page, and merely contribute towards more text clutter while editing hence no harm comes to Wikipedia, as nothing is being affected for the worse. You also fail to realize that discussions are not about "winning and losing" - this is probably why so many editors feel the need to discuss your issues with editing with you. And I'm apparently "god-like" for deciding to remove unrequired citation names, yet you aren't for adding content that is not required? Your reasoning here fails me.

My actions on Humans were barely hostile, you simply assumed that every website is the same and that we needed to comply with AMC, even though practically every source on that page referred to the series as "Humans", instead of "HUMANS". If that's your outlook, then you really do need to touch up on your guidelines and regulations. We shouldn't need to suffer through your assumptions due to your lack of knowledge. Though, since you brought this up (again), if you still have issues with it, take it there, not here. Alex|The|Whovian 02:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Terra Nova

Heeee's baaaaaack![1] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Forever Reception section

AlexTheWhovian, I have written a section on the fans' reaction to the series cancellation from independent, third-party sources. I haven't included it yet. Should I? SciGal (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@SciGal: I see no reason not to include it. If anyone disagrees with its inclusion, I'm sure that they'll create a discussion on the series' talk page. Alex|The|Whovian 14:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it.SciGal (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@SciGal: Glad to help out! Alex|The|Whovian 14:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Richard Hurndall

You removed my edit putting Richard Hurndall as a doctor actor in the infobox on the page the doctor (doctor who). In my opinion, he should be there as he played the doctor in the television series for an entire feature-length episode, as much as John Hurt (excluding the last few seconds of name of the doctor).

The reason you gave was that he was in other actors who played the doctor, but John Hurt is there too should he then be removed from the infobox? In fact, I think I am right in saying all of the doctors are there mentioned.

If you supply me with a decent reason for the removal, I am happy to leave Hurndall off the infobox. Thanks.

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh: Put simply: Richard Hurndall was a replacement actor. John Hurt was the real thing. Alex|The|Whovian 21:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up, thought that might be the case! Don't why I added it, really. Sorry for the disruption and thanks for the reply.Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zoo (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CTV. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

DW Series 9

How do we know its speculation there end, and they haven't had confirmation themselves? You saying they are speculating is you speculating. And also, where should we put the Christmas Special? As there isn't a "Series 10" page or "Specials" page or whatever they are going to do next to add it. Or would that be speculation themselves too? Charlr6 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Charlr6: On the Cultbox page, there is no source or statement of confirmation from an official source (i.e. the BBC), concerning both the dates and the Christmas special. There is extremely little information on the Christmas special, if there is indeed one, so there's no rush to add information about it just yet. Alex|The|Whovian 12:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If/When a Christmas Special does get officially announced, where would we put that information out of interest? Would it also depend on whatever production code they give it? Charlr6 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who no longer uses Production Codes. It would most likely be to a new section beneath List of Doctor Who serials#Series_9 titled "Special (2015)" (or something similar, following the names of other Specials categories), being an actual table on the List of Serials page (instead of being transcluded from other pages), then moved to the Series 10 table once that was created. Alex|The|Whovian 13:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Audio works

Why don't audio works get listed? Bit mean on the Big Finish people, isn't it, largely ignoring their efforts by limiting them to a spiel a the bottom of the page? They are definitely canonical, if you don't believe me, the Eighth Doctor lists his Big Finish companions in The Night of the Doctor, thus definitively canonising audio works. Therefore, they should be mentioned in the infobox. Moreover, Graeme Garden (who only played the Meddling Monk in audios) is listed in the "portrayed by" section of the infobox on the "Monk (Doctor Who)" page, so why can audio actors not also be on the equivalent part of the Master's page?

Also, was the source alright? I don't know whether it's acceptable, I thought it would be, seeing as it's not a fan site, but I wasn't sure. I would be much obliged if you could apprise me of this.

Thanks. Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Graeme Garden from the Monk (Doctor Who) infobox. Thanks for the headsup, that should've been removed ages ago. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 16:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Amy Manson Portrait.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Amy Manson Portrait.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 9 Test Edit

I don't know if this would be too much for the episode table but going from what you was doing in your test edit, I was looking at this;

Story	Episode	Title	Directed by	Written by	UK viewers (million)	AI	Original air date
253
	–	"Last Christmas"	Paul Wilmshurst	Steven Moffat	8.28	82	25 December 2014 (2014-12-25)
	254
1		"The Magician's Apprentice"	Hettie MacDonald	Steven Moffat	TBA	TBA	Autumn 2015
2		"The Witch's Familiar"	Hettie MacDonald	Steven Moffat	TBA	TBA	TBA
255
		3	TBA	Daniel O'Hara	Toby Whithouse	TBA	TBA	TBA
	4	TBA	Daniel O'Hara	Toby Whithouse	TBA	TBA	TBA

@13thDoctor93: That's rather good! I had something similar in my sandbox (User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox#Episodes), and suggested such an edit on Template:Episode list, but to no reply. I simply find the whole thing of numbering episode with letters (e.g. 254a, 260b) cluttering. Alex|The|Whovian 09:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

References

The Graham Norton Show

Hi Alex. How are you? I just wondering about your recent edits to the Graham Norton Show page. I knew about the edits to the episode guide but I saw that you recently made sweeping edits to the main page, such as erasing the "as of 3 July 2015" and the current series grid. I have been helping edit that page for a few years now and there has been no problem. Would it be possible to explain your edits and maybe try and revert something like one of the above changes, as this has been the way for British series that I have seen on Wikipedia. (I don't know if it is different for other countries. ) Also, I have noticed that every time that I update the episode count on the episodes page, you seem to make an extra edit not just 5 minutes later changing the look of the episode grids. It does seem a bit bothersome, not to be rude.I have been contributing to the page fora few years and to suddenly have someone taking over is a bit jarring. I know this is Wikipedia but still. I'm sorry if this seems like an attack, but I just wanted to understand your edits. Any help is appreciated.74.15.186.97 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)samusek2

Many of the edits are to confirm to template guidelines and policies. The removal of "as of 3 July 2015" is due to the fact that it is unrequired, as per the {{Infobox television}} template documentation. The current series grid is merely a duplicate of what is found on the List of Episodes page - duplicates are not required. I have changed no such look with my recent edits, merely updating the table headers to a new template ({{Episode table}}). Many editors edit Wikipedia, and many are within the same timezone, so your claim that I "seem to make an extra edit not just 5 minutes later" is rather pointless. While I may not actively watch the series, I have the article on my Watchlist (something that confirmed editors have), and when I see your edits appear, I may notice something else that needs fixing. No editor owns or has control of any Wikipedia page, meaning that there's no leading editor and no "taking over" editor, and simply because you have been editing it for several years, does not mean you have any leadership over the page - check WP:OWN. I recommend touching up on your policies and guidelines. Alex|The|Whovian 19:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

TV cast

I'm not sure if you've been following the discussions at WT:TV but, in every case we've decided that cast shouldn't be included until they have actually appeared in an episode. Somebody who hasn't appeared in any episodes can't be a recurring character. That's why Chris Evans hasn't been listed as a presenter of Top Gear and why Daryl Mitchell and Shalita Grant haven't been listed as main characters in NCIS: New Orleans. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I kinda of see what you mean with this. But what if the source clearly states that the character will be recurring? Should the information perhaps be added to the Production/Casting section, instead of the main Cast section? It is information about the future of the show, just as future episodes are added to the table/article when such information is available. Alex|The|Whovian 04:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that adding the content to production/casting is entirely appropriate. They can be added to the cast sections once episodes air. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox television season

Good work on your edits. I'm more than willing to accept the occasional stupid mistake from even experienced editors (I make plenty muself!) but I just can't tolerate half-arsed solutions from any editor who won't bother to do the right thing.[2] --AussieLegend (✉) 08:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Thanks, and ditto. The straight-out "solution" of affecting thousands of good articles just to fix a few bad ones definitely got on my irked side. Alex|The|Whovian 09:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd be happy to remove colour from the infobox, but I wouldn't remove it without discussion, as he did. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: 'Grats on making the quotes on his user page! Alex|The|Whovian 09:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

WHY would he do that? Most people try to hide stuff like that. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, I just added this to my user page. I hope you don't mind. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No problems! Alex|The|Whovian 10:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand and respect your opposition to him including that quote but really, if he wants to be portrayed as a bad editor, why should we prevent him? If you continue reverting on his user page you might end up in trouble yourself. I don't want to see you blocked for edit-warring and it would not be good for Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent actions on Alakzi's user and talk page have not been constructive, and seem to amount to "baiting". I understand your frustration but please stay away from that user's pages for a while because you are not helping the situation. Stop your edit warring on the user page too. That comment reflects badly on Alakzi and not yourself, so just let it stay there, okay. Further disruption will result in a block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Extant cast list

Hi AlexTheWhovian. I'm looking at MOS:TVCAST, and nothing in there says that what I did with the subsections for Extant was either not allowed, or even ill-advised. The current cast list is a mess, and I really think sub-dividing in to sections by season, as I attempted to do, is a better solution than what we've got now... Comments? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how adding subsections fixes the apparent mess; rather, is it not simply spreading it out? Alex|The|Whovian 18:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the current problem is some of the 'Recurring' list is indicated with "(Season 2)" tag info, but none of the season 1 recurring cast is, and this also leads to awkward problems with the few recurring who were seen in both seasons. Dividing in to 'sub-sections' seemed to solve this issue. As this isn't disallowed under MOS:TVCAST, can we at least try it my way for a while, to see if it improves the situation? (If Extant is renewed for a third season, maybe the best solution will be a separate List of Extant characters article, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Alex and IJBall. Here is some background info for you. Back around 06 or 07 there was a decision to move the cast lists for TV shows into the infobox. It has created problems like this one ever since. This was different from the film project which has a limited number of names in the infobox and then a fuller cast list in the body of the article. Once a show has gone beyond one season the potential for infobox bloat is obvious. My apologies as I wouldn't know where to look for the original discussion. Also, this is only partially relevant to what you are trying to decide. I certainly was not trying to make things worse and I hope you will forgive me if I have. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 20:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, definitely a much different problem with TV series vs. movies. There are several possible solutions: a separate cast list article, shifting the cast lists to separate "season" articles, etc. The issue in the case of Extant is that two seasons is probably not long enough to justify either of these two options. So we're probably stuck with the 'Recurring cast' list appearing on the main article page for now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

What format?

I'd like to know what "format" you are referring to, which would be broken by writing the span of a one-year TV series with the DTS tag, with this edit summary. Davejohnsan (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Davejohnsan: Please read the documentation of {{Infobox television}} and {{Dts}}. The former states "Use {{Start date}}(e.g. {{start date|1981|02|26}}) so that the date is included the template's hCalendar microformat, and is properly formatted according to a reader's Wikipedia date and time preferences", whereas the use for the latter is "to correctly sort and display dates in a sortable table (see Help:Sorting)". Alex|The|Whovian 14:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That was all I needed to hear. Thank you. Davejohnsan (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 9 - Production Blocks

I have taken a photo of the source, which shows that the latest issue of the Doctor Who magazine has stated this. Here it is: http://prntscr.com/7vq09j --Badgerdog2 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wayward Pines ep 10

Hi, AlexTheWhovian I've just undone you're delete since it was not justified. Regards gonporto

Summaries get added when the episode airs in its origin country. It may be available in other countries first, but it hasn't yet aired in America (origin country). You'll note that the summary has been reverted by another editor as well. Alex|The|Whovian 13:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

As you are aware, your edit was reverted. The ship is referred to in the feminine, and this should not be changed without establishing consensus for such change first. See WP:SHE4SHIPS. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I noticed that, and read the policy. Fair enough. Alex|The|Whovian 09:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI

You should expand on your complaint at ANI. It's going to be difficult for anyone to act based on what you've written. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I have now done so. Alex|The|Whovian 13:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, Alex. I'm pretty sure you think Alakzi is one giant pain in the ass, but he's just trying to do what he thinks is proper per the color-contrast and accessibility guidelines. In my personal experience, Alakzi is one of the best coders and template editors (if not the best) I've encountered in my 6+ years on Wikipedia. He's sharp as a f---ing tack. He's also a technical guy, and he views the world through that lens. If you want him to understand your non-technical perspective, you need to explain why what you want is important to you. You may find that once you articulate why it's important to you, that it's not that important at all. Or, at worst, the other guy may understand you better and work a little harder to accommodate your concerns. Read my questions on the template talk page, and let's see if we can't find some way to move this forward in a manner that addresses the accessibility concerns. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning

I saw the deleted edits on Alakzi's user page, and this, and your edits to his talk page. I can't help but conclude that either you are acting maliciously, or your suspiciously ignorant. In any event, what you're doing is not acceptable and I would urge caution and restraint. Neither you or Alakzi are helping the situation substantially and from what I see, only escalating. This issue can be resolved peacefully and without personal attacks, harassment or malicious behavior (I keep telling myself). I hope you see that too. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm also disturbed by the ANI report of Alakzi, which you originally opened, given

• Prior warning given to you about baiting Alakzi[3]
• Continuing to edit Alakzi's talk page after they requested you not to [4](see WP:NOBAN)
• Forum shopping of Alakzi's behavior on WP:AIV as as at WP:ANI
• Mischaracterizing Alakzi's behavior as vandalism, contrary to WP:NOTVANDALISM

Given that Alakzi is no longer blocked, there is no need for a reciprocal block to keep things fair, as you were not completely innocent in the matter either. Echoing Ceradon, I'm hoping consensus can be reached on the color issue with all parties following WP:DR, as needed, going forward. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Your categorization of "baiting" is incorrect in this situation, I did no such thing. I find it funny that you warn me for gaining consensus when this whole issue was about a troublesome user going against consensus. And I still hold that his edits were vandalistic; you can't force another's opinion. I certainly wasn't innocent (none of us were, given that we were all involved), but I'd calmly recommend that you know what you're on about. :) I'm trying to distance myself fro the issue and troublesome editor, so further replies won't be necessary before I archive this discussion. Thanks! Alex|The|Whovian 07:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I should have placed baiting in quotes, as it was taken verbatim from the previous admin's warning, who also placed it in quotes. I think we're all in agreement to move forward, so I'll otherwise respect your wish for no "further replies" on this. Happy editing!—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Colors

Hey, Alex. I would be grateful if you would weigh in here: Template talk:Infobox television season#Compromise: a possible way forward. It's to time to resolve this, and given that the timing of compliance seemed to be the primary hurdle, this would seem to be a reasonable way to resolve what appears to be an unnecessarily prolonged dispute. Thank you for your consideration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Lets go easy

Alex, I know you mean to be helpful, but your recent exchanges on Whyedithere's talk page, particularly about the Extant (season 2) mess, are doing very little to help the situation with his editing, and plenty to simply make him defensive and defiant. If you continue to return to his talk page and harangue him about the mistake he made, you will find yourself blocked, particularly considering your recent episode with Alakzi.

I'd suggest you dial down the need to be right, and the need to push a point beyond a constructive exchange with an editor. You made your point three or four posts before your exchange with Whyedit ended, by which time he was so pissed off you were just inflaming the situation, not solving a problem. Know when enough is enough.

Similarly, please be careful that when you're criticizing an editor about errors they made that you don't make similar ones yourself. You put the deletion notice and redirect on the correctly formatted Extant (season 2) page, and left the content on the incorrect one instead of the reverse. You should have moved the content to the correct (older) one and then put in a redirect on the new (incorrect) one. Given that, and the ugliness of your most recent exchange with Whyedit, you need to put some distance between yourself and his edits for a while. Drop a note on my talk page or AussieLegend's if something concerns you, and we'll keep an eye on it. --Drmargi (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Apologies for my actions. However, I would note that your third paragraph is the incorrect way of moving an article, as it doesn't move the article's history as well (granted, there wasn't much of it, but it existed nonetheless). Alex|The|Whovian 04:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

And yet you're still going at each other on the List of Extant episodes article. You're both at five reverts (and don't tell me it's on two different topics; it's still five reverts on the page with 24 hours). You need to find another corner of Wikipedia to edit. --Drmargi (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop editing the television shows that I watch because of another editor? And if you'd noticed, I stopped warring, and compromised on only some of the edit, which the other editor seemed to accept. Alex|The|Whovian 16:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)