User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Alex Russo

Why did you revert my whole edit on Alex Russo page? However poorly written, it was still better than the previous edit.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.42.120 (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, no it wasn't. The sentence structure was so poor that I had trouble understanding it. Since the previous version was understandable, it was the preferred version. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

My edit was basically just an expansion of the previous version by adding some details. There were only 1 or 2 changes in sentence sequences. So, I still dont understand how mine was more poorly written than previous version. Even if there are grammatically mistakes, you should have just corrected them, instead of totally reverted it (like some kind of censorship). I am a big fan of this series who has watched every episode several times. All of the details that I added can be proven mentioned in the series and needed to properly describe Alex Russo's characters.

I couldn't correct your errors because I couldn't understand what you were trying to say in most places, and where I could understand, it required a complete rewrite to fix the problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, someone need to actually watch the series thoroughly to understand/to be able to edit what I&the previous writers wrote. Anyway, my point is that the current version is no better if not worse than mine. Did you get paid to keep this page free of vandalism? If not, why bother so much to revert what I wrote because some grammatical mistakes? The whole Alex Russo page full of it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.41.132 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody gets paid, we are all volunteers. This is an encyclopaedia and requires a formal tone, and correct English. if there are spelling and grammar problems on a page they should be fixed. that they may exist is not a reason to add more. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Top Gear Series 22 Bold Text

I am just wondering why that my edit was reverted on Series 22 of the Top Gear page. Shouldn't all the series have the same style of design, as series 19, 20 & 21 all have bold text in the summary section. 13thDoctor93 (δ³Σx²) 14:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Bolding should not be used for emphasis. Per MOS:BOLD italics should be used, and this should be applied to all seasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back in touch, I now understand to why this was done :) 13thDoctor93 (δ³Σx²) 15:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Adult Swim date ranges

Hey Aussie, the other day I went through List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim and converted all the date ranges to the typical YYYY–YY format. The change was reverted by an IP with no explanation. Were my changes inappropriate? I thought they were consistent with MOS:DATERANGE. I know you have access to a script that changes these values, if you think the changes are solid, could you run your script on them? I had to manually change the ranges and I don't particularly want to do that again. And if you don't think the changes are appropriate, I'm interested in your notes. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The change you made was appropriate so I've changed the dates again, as well as doing some other minor cleanup. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Per usual, thank you, sir. As you probably know, there is a strangely protective (and ignorant) fanbase at some of these articles. Toonami is another... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: One of the IPs is persistently restoring the long-format range despite WP:DATERANGE so I've left a note on his/her talk page. They know how to undo revisions, so why do they not understand edit sumamries? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep me eyes peeled. It's that controlling POV fanbase... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Aussie, I finally installed that dash fixing script. Do you know of a script that automates date range fixes as discussed above? (ex: 2005–2008 --> 2005–08) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I generally do a global search and replace. It's not too difficult and there generally aren't a lot of articles that have lots of date ranges like that. Somebody probably has a script somewhere, I just haven't found it, and I'm too lazy to write one. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Custom Thumbnails

Seeing that you set all the Total Drama thumbnails sizes back to default, is there a way to set a custom size for all thumbnails on your settings. Like I heard a way where you can set the default size of all thumbnails on all articles so they can be bigger for me, but still small for you guys. I'm still kinda new here so I thought a more experienced user like you would know Giggett (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You can change the default thumbnail setting in Preferences, on the "Appearance" tab. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I got it and yes it works. All thumbnails are back to 300px like the way they were before :) Giggett (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

What is your problem?

You're ridiculously conservative, even against obvious evidence – to the point that it's highly damaging for the encyclopedia. Take your finger off the revert button for a moment and try to see how some changes might actually be beneficial, will you? Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not being conservative, I'm doing things properly. I assume that you are talking about your inappropriate removal of content from template instructions, which I have addressed on your talk page. As indicated there, what you see as redundancy is normal, and appropriate practice for writing software documentation, and is even acceptable in normal practice throughout Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about you being pretty much the only user to almost always revert edits to the main TV project pages. It's like you automatically revert and put a canned message in the edit summary that seems appropriate without really trying to understand the rationale behind the edit. Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're talking about here. I never edit WP:TV and I don't remember the last time I reverted at WT:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You know quite well that I'm talking about the major pages spanned by the project, like Template:Infobox television and MOS:TV. Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No I don't, because you didn't make that clear. I haven't reverted at Template talk:Infobox television. Apart from your inappropriate edit at Template:Infobox television/doc, the last revert I made there was in November, to an an inappropriate edit. Prior to that I reverted an edit 11 months ago that restored a parameter that had been removed from the template, with the explanation that it was not a valid parameter. At MOS:TV the only reversions have been to inappropriate edits. Please don't make up stories. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You've now made three unwarranted assertions about my edits: disruptiveness, inappropriateness, and outright lying. WP:CIVILITY ring a bell? Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You've edit-warred at Template:Infobox television/doc, you're editing disruptively at MOS:TV, declaring a consensus where none exists and where a limited discussion to date cannot yet override a previously established consensus and you've made up stories about my editing history which is not supported by any evidence. I'm afraid your pleas of incivility are equally invalid. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Making a second revert based on WP:AGF isn't edit warring in my book. You've clearly declared yourself WP:OWNER of both of the pages you've just linked to above, so perhaps these discussions are pointless. What isn't pointless though is pointing out your WP:HOUNDING of my edits (how quickly you jumped between those pages!) and the fact that you continually pretend not to know what I'm talking about when you obviously do. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you check the definition of edit-warring, and read WP:OWNER and WP:HOUNDING. I'm afraid that I have very little tolerance for people who make baseless allegations on my talk page and any further such edits will be reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing at the same time

I apologize if I inadvertently erased your edit. When I saw the edit-conflict notice, I hit the back button to get out the talk page, but my edit went in regardless. Just wanted to assure it was inadvertent. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the apology, but your edit didn't do anything it wasn't supposed to do so all is fine. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: A million inches

Hi, AussieLegend. I may not have expressed myself fully in the edit summary, but having the unit in parentheses does in fact imply "viewers in millions" or "in millions of viewers," as it's a unit of measurement (although actually some episode lists like List of Downton Abbey episodes/List of Seinfeld episodes do fully spell it out). I'd also point to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, which presents the correct usage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It implies "viewers in millions" but that could also be implied if we put "x 1,000,000". I'm well aware of the example in MOS:TV but that's just an example relevant to the series overview table. It doesn't mandate that we have to use that wording. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Scorpion (TV series)

Your recent edits/summaries:

• "incorrect use of field - Walter O'Brien is not a work see infobox instructions." I saw it before and since. The description says "The work(s)" because that's normally what a series (or film) is based on. Very rarely is it on a person. But, the parameter is "Based on" and that's what the reader wants to see.
• "infobox fixes, ; formatting: 2x heading-style." I don't think most of that is "fixing". Plainlists are not needed if only 2 items, and why remove spaces from headings? (See Help:Section#Headings) --Musdan77 (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The parameter instructions specifically say "The work(s) that the show is based on", not the person. Ignoring instructions and putting things in fields that don't match the instructions only serves to confuse readers. We have instructions for a reason. The instructions also say "Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}}", not separate more than two entries. (2 is multiple. Headings in articles should be consistent, either all spaced or all unspaced. The script that I use identifies headings that are not consistent with the majority of headings. In the case that you give as an example, 9 headings were unspaced and only 2 were spaced, so the script identified those headings that needed changing to make all headings consistent. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

1) like I said, the parameter is "Based on" and that's what is seen and that's all the reader cares about. Those instructions are guidelines. You have to be able to "read between the lines" sometimes. There are exceptions, such as this one. 2) I disagree that "2 is multiple". Most definitions of the word say "several" and "numerous". In fact, I would say the 2 is not really a list. 3) I understand about consistency, but I don't think it's necessary to change things that don't affect the actual page. ..If I'm wrong about that, please explain why. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The template instructions are not simply guidelines that you can choose to follow or ignore at will. They have been chosen for a reason and should be followed unless there is very good reason not to. We need to be consistent. Would you consider putting "Canada" in first_aired if a US program first aired in Canada? No, because that's not the purpose of the field. You can disagree that "2 is multiple" all you like, but the dictionary definition of multiple is "having more than one" and 2 is more than 1. It's certainly not necessary to change the headings so they're all consistent, but there's certainly no reason why we shouldn't be consistent. There's no need to mow your lawn, to flush the toilet after you're done or turn the lights off when you leave a room, but we do them. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Come on, I didn't say, "ignore at will". You have to use your brain. Those aren't rules that must followed exactly as written every time (not policy). You say, "purpose of the field"; the purpose of the field is what it's based on, not (necessarily) what "work" it's based on. 2) I know that Wiktionary says, "more than one". It also says, "particularly many". And I said that most others say "several", not "more than one". And it isn't sourced on Wiktionary. I hope you don't use Wiktionary as your first choice for a dictionary. 3) That's a very bad analogy. All of those things are necessary. Don't be silly. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"the purpose of the field is what it's based on, not (necessarily) what "work" it's based on." - That's incorrect. The field specifically says "work". When the instructions are specific, you have to assume they're specific for a reason. If they weren't so specific, then you might have a case but, because they're so specific then you have to stick to what the instructions say. As for the definition of multiple, because sources say that 2 is multiple, you need a source that explicitly says 2 is not multiple if you really want to prove that you're correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Zap

Hey Aussie, weird question: What dates do you see for the most recent four episodes of Uncle Grandpa at Zap2It? I see:

• Duck Lips - March 5, 2015
• Numbskull - March 12, 2015
• Body Trouble - March 5, 2015
• Shower Party - March 5, 2015

Reason why I'm asking is this: This guy (From Abu Dhabi, UAE) added Shower Party to the ep list, with an air date of March 26, 2015. This obviously doesn't jibe with what I'm seeing. And then this person (From Sofia, Bulgaria) kept changing some air dates at List of Sofia the First episodes to March 27, even though I was seeing March 5 for the last few episodes. (Oddly, this date kept changing. One day it was March 1, then March 2, then March 5) So what I'm curious about is if Zap is reporting data based on the reader's locality—that is, are these contributors seeing US air dates for these US series, or local airdates? I'm asking you since we live in different hemispheres. If Zap were to start reporting airdates based upon the reader's location, that could make Zap a problematic source, and it would definitely lead to erroneous vandalism accusations. Tanx, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing exactly what you're seeing for Uncle Grandpa. I'm reluctant to use Zap2it as I've seen far too many problems with their listings. Around New Year we had a problem at MythBusters (2015 season) when Zap2it's guide kept changing the date to the current date every day.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 18:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should reassess it then. Frankly, I've got problems with all the sources. MSN doesn't have any episodes past February 20 listed for Sofia the First, nor does TVGuide. Sometimes shows are missing from these DBs entirely. Very odd. My fear is that we'll be left with no reliable sources for less popular series. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There are definitely issues with all sources and sadly they're not limited to less popular series. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary edits

Hi, are you aware that edits like this go against WP:AWB#Rules of use, item 4? All that you appear to be doing is bypassing a redirect (which is contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN) and unnecessarily altering <br> (which is perfectly valid HTML 5) to <br /> (which is also valid HTML 5). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The edits I've been making certainly don't only do that. You've managed to set eyes on one article where the changes made were only that. There are plenty of articles that include far more extensive issues. There are a lot of articles with invalid line breaks and AWB was set to fix those as just one of the things that it does. I didn't think it was a problem to make all articles use a consistent format. Anyone is free to revert of course. My main aim was to carry out some general cleanup of articles, including adding some consistency. I'm more than happy to just leave the articles for somebody else to fix if my efforts are not appreciated. Regarding the redirect, I suppose it is pointless. Even the "GB" will disappear if another editor has his way. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I informed the AWB devs; and they suggest that it's something to do with your settings. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's now been archived to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive 28#Don't alter valid HTML line-break tags. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notice

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request_for_Comment whose outcome could affect WikiProject Film. You may wish to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Aussie. I think we're all good at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Check out my edit at [2], and if you're cool with it, I think we can close it out. Please let me know. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sydney Harbor Bridge revert

I just wanted the citation to be properly formatted. I didn't inspect the thing closely to make sure we could use it. Good job, checking that! - Denimadept (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I gathered that. Good work on taking the time to format the citation properly. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

King of Queens Cast

I don't necessary agree with your way of arranging the cast list on The King of Queens as I think it is extremely misleading. It should be listed by character relevance and frequency. Like every other TV show example 24 (TV Series). You are putting Lisa Rieffel as 3rd main when she is only in about 4 episodes. Jerry Stiller is listed 7th when he is 3rd main. It is very confusing for someone who hasn't watched the show, so I strongly urge you to take my advice on this matter. JohnGormleyJG (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion is at odds with the way that WP:TV has decided that cast should be listed. As I explained in my edit summary, cast are listed as explained in MOS:TV and the infobox instructions.[3] Specifically, MOS:TVCAST says "The cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list". This is reflected in the instructions for {{Infobox television}}, which say "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show.". If you disagree with this, by all means open a discussion at WT:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

May I just ask your opinion on 24 (TV Series) as it is done the other way there.JohnGormleyJG (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't watch 24 and don't have any episodes here to check, but the MOS should be followed. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Mary Lynn Rajskub doesn't appear until season 3 although she is in the 2nd most ammount of episodes after Kiefer Sutherland. They are all listed from most episodes to least. P.S. you should watch 24 it is great. JohnGormleyJG (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have made a post on that talk page here. Please help me change this as I don't feel it is right. JohnGormleyJG (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should stick with what the MOS says. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks anyway. I suppose you want me to change it for 24. JohnGormleyJG (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills

excuse me but the real housewives of beverly hills page is formatted INCORRECTLY and has been vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.91.196 (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the article. Can you please describe the problem? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

2bg

i dont know how to pm you so sorry for writting in here you can delete it when you see it. I removed the flags but whats your problem why you are deleting Greece from the broadcast which i wrote twice i have refrences list and there is a column of international broadcasters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim.vas.nikol (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit summary, per WP:TVINTL, we only include broadcasts from English speaking countries. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Signature

Hello I am just inquiring how to use the customized signature for talk pages as I know you have one but I can't seem to get the link working on it but I do still have the colours working. Thank You JohnGormleyJG 21:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's just a matter of wrapping the coloured text with wikilinks as required. [[User:JohnGormleyJG|'''<span style="color:#039DE5;">John</span><span style="color:#A8DB5B;">Gormley</span><span style="color:#039DE5;">J</span><span style="color:#A8DB5B;">G</span>''']] ([[User talk:JohnGormleyJG#top|<big>✉</big>]]) will render as JohnGormleyJG (✉). Make sure "Treat the above as wiki markup" is checked. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for help JohnGormleyJG (✉) 16:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes for Ramsar sites

Hi AussieLegend, I refer to our recent discussions re infoboxes for protected areas. I want to do some work on the six Ramsar sites located in South Australia; this is likely to consist of four new articles and two upgraded articles. I have asked the WikiProject Protected areas about the specific use of infobox for articles about Ramsar sites - the discussion can be read at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas. While the advice was helpful, I think it may be in conflict with the recent upgrading of infoboxes in articles about Australian protected areas. In particular, there is a preference for the inclusion of an “embedded designation” which consists of three additional lines in the infobox. In order to make a start, I propose to use the standard infobox offered by WikiProject Protected areas. I am therefore wondering what can or should be done from a WikiProject Australia perspective. For example, is it possible to create a mini-infobox that contains the “embedded designation” and which can be added to the Infobox Australian place when required? By the way, if you are wondering, there are 65 Ramsar sites in Australia. Look forward to your reply. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's probably not too much trouble to add what you're asking to the Australian infobox. Getting it added to {{Infobox protected area}} is likely to be a huge effort, based on previous experience.. When you have some sample articles, please let me know so I can look into this further. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

3rr

You need to see rule exemption #7.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have. In fact I directed you to it on your talk page, in a post that you have deleted.[4] --AussieLegend (✉) 10:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Gag

Don't leave unfounded messages on my talk page. Also, your little list of me breaching the 3rr aren't even all on the same thing so please review that so you aren;t wrong about that in the future. Also, stop messaging me period. You've passed annoyance.Cebr1979 (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: The message was necessary as your comments have degenerated into personal attacks. I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:3RR which is quite clear, A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. You made 6 reverts on Willy Moon in much less than 24 hours.[5][6][7][8][9][10]

Does your email work?

I tried emailing you, but it kept failing to send. Given this website's rules on talkpages (no forum), I wanted to ask something that wasn't Wiki-related considering you are a native of Australia, and had a question or two that did not pertain to the website. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

My email is fine, so I don't know why it wouldn't send. We're a little bit more relaxed on user talkpages. What would you like to know? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Is your email address from either yahoo or gmail? If so, see phab:T66795, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#Is "Email this user" on the blink? and the threads linked back from there. This often comes up at VPT, and some people are under the misapprehension that the recipient's email address is the problem - it's not, it's that of the sender. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

F3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion moved to Talk:Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) to seek wider input. WP:AUSTRALIA and WP:AURD notified.

---

I'll need some more convincing that my edit on Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) wasn't valid. If a route was never signed with a shield/number, I don't think you can say it was an official route number (are there any other examples where this is done?). The article explains the circumstances around the F3 name at some length which is appropriate, but even though the name was widely used on documents and road name patches, that doesn't make it a route number so it shouldn't be in the infobox as such. Ausmeerkat (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

NSW F3 route shield

"F3" was used in the government gazette, and the "F" numbers were used on other roads. I don't really see the difference between "M1 Pacific Motorway" and "F3 Freeway". If one is not a route number, why is the other? At one stage we even had the route shield in the article. It was removed when the SVG version was deleted but it still exists as a PNG version. There's a similar sign at ozroads on the F6 route. Ozroads also has a good explanation about the "F" system.[11] That it wasn't signposted doesn't mean it wasn't the route number. That's how the "F3 Freeway" name came about. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no question on whether there was a F "system", but a name that is used on internal documents but never shown as a shield on the route itself does not count as a route number. By your reckoning, M2, M4 and M5 should listed as route numbers prior to 2014 since they also were commonly used despite not being on any signs. F6 is different to F3 in that it did appear on signs, but note that the Princes Motorway article lists it as a route number only up to "mid 1980s", despite it continuing in an unofficial capacity for much longer in the same vein as F3. Ausmeerkat (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't just used on internal documents. It was used everywhere, except on signs on the route itself. The route was gazetted as "F3 Freeway" and that's what makes it official. Signage doesn't determine the route, it merely identifies the route. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no sale. Being used "everywhere" is to vague to be useful as a definition (and besides, I'm not denying the road was called F3, we're debating whether it's the route number). You seem to think the gazetting is the key thing. But lots of roads are gazetted with identifiers that are not the route number (HW12, Main Road 123, etc). And other numbered routes are not gazetted at all to my knowledge (A3, etc). Given this, and the fact that the average road user has no knowledge of internal government documents, the only sensible definition of a Route Number is what appears on the signs on the road itself. Ausmeerkat (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There was an "F" series of route numbers, the road was gazetted as "F3 Freeway", which is as authoritative as you can get, the road is still widely known as the F3, even in official documentation: In short there is so much evidence that the road was the F3 that it's unquestionable. "I don't believe it was that route because it didn't have signs on the road" is probably the weakest arghument you can use. Gazetting is the official documentation. If the route number is changed, it has to be gazetted. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"If the route number is changed, it has to be gazetted." - can you please back that up with some evidence? Every route number in NSW was changed a couple of years ago I believe the only gazetted changes were around name changes (Hume Highway -> Hume Motorway, etc). I agree this discussion would be easier if there were an official register of route numbers, but I really do not believe one exists (other than that provided by the NSW government during the alpha conversion), so for former routes signs on the ground are the best we have to go by. And you also haven't addressed the fact that you're treating F3 as a special case, as you aren't advocating listing similar former but unsigned routes (F5, F6, M2, M4, M5) in their respective articles. Ausmeerkat (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Runtime parameter

Leaving aside your suggestion to the admin that he did not understand WP:NOR, I have to note we are in agreement with his suggestion "to unpack the separate question of inline citations." In the meantime, however, he said clearly that "third-party sourcing is required." That is all that the infobox template's clarification says. It doesn't say anything about citing. Not a word. The closing admin's decision at the RfC is "third-party sourcing is required," so that clarification properly goes into the infobox. The whole reason to do an RfC on the infobox template's talk page and not the TV Project talk page is to clarify the infobox template.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Saying "third-party sourcing is required" is redundant, as we're supposed to use third party sourcing. Howevever, he has said that whether or not we we require sourcing in the infobox is a different issue, and what you've added implies that sources are required for all runtimes, which is not the case at all. As for this edit summary, by all means, if you want to be disruptive and make WP:POINTy edits,[12] please take it to ANI. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite everything, I think we're both acting in good faith. I don't believe the embedded note is redundant, since — and I think, again, we'd agree on this — most editors have not been providing sourcing. Thus, who knows where their claims come from? I think a lot of it has been OR. This just reinforces what, yes, should be obvious but which isn't being followed in many cases. You want good research; I want good research. I respect you for that very much, believe it or not. We might have different ways of going about it, but in the end, I genuinely believe we're on the same side. With regards and respect, --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is that you've made an assumption based on your interpretation of the closer's comments. In fact, the closer has now clarified everything further at WT:TV#Rfc close, specifically stating, amongst other things, The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind. The note is most definitely redundant as there is no requirement to provide sourcing, and you can't mandate that sourcing is required without some consensus. The RfC closer has actually said that if we need to address this we need another RfC and the last one certainly didn't support it. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand: Neither I nor the embedded note says a word about inline citing. Not a word.

And according to the admin closer: "third-party sourcing is required". I understand that you don't want to give third-party sourcing. But the admin says it's required. And no one is doing it, so that reminder needs to be there.

Once again, with all respect, please stop saying that I'm claiming that an inline cite is required. I am not saying that. You are saying something that is untrue. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read what the closer has written at WT:TV. What he has said refers to all sourcing. The close was procedural, based on the fact that the "are editors allowed to measure them with a stopwatch ourselves" portion of the RfC question is something we could not allow as it would violate WP:NOR, an overriding policy. In order to clarify things he said Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind. What he said about third-party sourcing being required was in response to the NOR issue, not the issue of whether or not citations are required, which is why he said The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes. Using third-party sourcing is the status quo, so it doesn't need to be stated in instructions. When it is, it's saying "this parameter specifically requires third-party sourcing" and will lead editors to think they are required to include a citation, when there is no mandated requirement of the sort. All of the content in the infobox requires third party sourcing but have you noticed that we don't specify it in any parameter? That's why. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not said anything about inline citations since the RfC ended — because I accept the RfC's decision. (I even reverted myself almost immediately when I inadvertently made a mention of citations in the template.) So to say I am advocating for anything except "third-party sourcing required", as the admin himself put it, is a smokescreen. I have not said anything about inline citations since the RfC ended. There is a requirement for third-party sourcing, and since that rule is being flouted in virtually every TV infobox, that note is absolutely needed. If there were any sourcing for the running times in the infoboxes — which appear to be nothing but educated guesses, i.e. OR — then a note would not be needed. But the infoboxes' runtime claims are virtually nothing but OR.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of showing good faith and "putting my money where my mouth is", as the saying goes, please take a look at a comment I just posted at Template talk:Infobox television/doc#Runtime parameter as per RfC close and subsequent admin reiteration where I say, in no uncertain terms, what you are saying: That no inline citation is necessarily required. If you think we should even add that to the embedded note — well, yes, of course. I really do think we're ultimately on the same page. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

As I've said on your talkpage, I can't find anywhere that JzG said anything was a smokescreen, although you've now used the word several times. Improper sourcing is used everywhere. We challenge it, or better still fix it, we don't add misleading notes to infobox instructions. It's merely your opinion that the note is needed. It's not supported by anyone else and you've been using false claims to justify including it in the infobox. Your note in the infobox talkpage is based on false pretenses. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd Like An Apology

If you disagree with my edits, that's fine. But threatening to block me because you disagree with them is unacceptable. Please apologize for the tone of your comment. Busy Moose (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Frankly, AussieLegend has done nothing that merits an apology. You were violating policy and he warned you what you were doing could result in your being blocked, nothing more. He didn't threaten anything, and he wasn't hostile. You may not be aware of it, but AL isn't an admin, so he couldn't block you if he wanted to. But I agree; if you persist as you are, an admin will come along, and he/she will block you. --Drmargi (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Violating what policy? I saw something that I thought that could be improved and I edited it. Isn't that how this place works? Busy Moose (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleting a valid image from a page because it doesn't use commas in numbers is not an improvement. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

New *Sexuality* section in Lost Girl article

I've edited my comment in the Talk page. What is going to be done with this section? Wikipedia is not a fan site per se. I've looked at several Wikipedia articles about TV shows and can't find another example that comes even close to a section that would support the addition of this one in the article. If it were the Wikipedia article for The Good Wife, would there be a section for explaining law and types of legal cases presented in the series? Your guidance is needed. (By the way: how've you been? Hope all's well by you.) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

When the dust below settles, AL, can you turn your attention to this matter for a few minutes? Because the Lost Girl article is no longer frequented by editors as it used to be, and if I tackle this section and edit it so that it reads more analytical and less opinionated, I need to know that I'm on the right track per Wikipedia MOSTV and have your support to do it. Thanks. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked by issues below and I've been a bit off for the past few days. It's now autumn here and the weather can't work out what it's doing. There is far too much original research in the section, tvtropes is not a reliable source and the only other reference is dubious. The section contains far too much information for a main series article. It definitely needs some cleaning up and appropriate sourcing. I trust you to work out what's relevant and ditch the rest. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear back from you! You've got autumm that doesn't want to play along, I'm living in a spring-summer-spring-summer bouncing ball of weather days. I appreciate your faith in me. One last favor: would you add a few words in response to my comment in the Lost Girl Talk page so that other editors who read it understand that where I'm coming from is not just an 'Attila the Hun' (or, perhaps, Lady Macbeth) moment. :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Blake Mysteries

We're going to be getting the Doctor Blake Mysteries next week, and I'm curious what you think of the show. It looks like an Aussie version of British cozy, which is alright with me. What think you? --Drmargi (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. I don't watch a lot of Oz TV. It's generally not very good and filled with commercials. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll take a peek and see if it's any good. We don't get much Oz TV. Thanks!! --Drmargi (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Lost Girl: Infobox Template + Introductory paragraph

User:AvatarOfHermes added the name of Paul Rapovski to the following:

Infobox Template fields
1. Developed by
2. Executive Producer(s)

Introductory section
Name added to the paragraph ("and Paul Rapovski").

Paul Rapovski is credited in the series as an Executive Producer. As an addition to infobox this is correct information. However, there is no authoritative source that corroborates his credit as a co-developer of the series. A fan is not a credible source. Whenever his name has been mentioned in press releases or statements about Lost Girl, he is listed among other executive producers -- only. To wit:

Canada Media Fund

Lost Girl

Lost Girl was developed by Prodigy Pictures, in association with Shaw Media and Showcase. Executive Producers are Jay Firestone, Plato Fountidakis, and Paul Rapovski. Co-Executive Producers are Michelle Lovretta, Jeremy Boxen and Brad Markowitz. Vanessa Piazza is Associate Producer and Wanda Chaffey is Producer.

source: http://www.canadaonscreen.ca/productions/television/lost_girl1

CanWest releases 2010 TV schedule with 14 new shows

July 9, 2010

Lost Girl (fall 2010) -- 13 by 60 minutes

Lost Girl follows supernatural seductress Bo, a succubus raised by humans, who just discovered she was born of a secret line of inhuman beings called Fae. Making her living as a private investigator, each week she must solve a new mystery while trying to remain neutral in the ancient battle between the light and the dark Fae and searching for the mother who abandoned her. Lost Girl was developed by Prodigy Pictures, in association with CanWest Broadcasting and Showcase. Executive producers are Jay Firestone, Michelle Lovretta, Peter Mohan, Plato Fountidakis and Paul Rapovski.

source: http://www.stockwatch.com/News/Item.aspx?bid=Z-C%3ACGS-1739074&symbol=CGS&region=C

Showcase Picks Up Lost Girl (from media release)

August 14, 2009

Lost Girl is developed and produced by Prodigy Pictures, with the participation of the Canadian Television Fund, the Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit and the Ontario Media Development Corporation. The series is executive produced by Jay Firestone, Paul Rapovksi, Plato Fountidakis, Michelle Lovretta and Peter Mohan. Lovretta also serves as Creator/Writer for Lost Girl and the series is also written by Mohan. Lost Girl is produced by Wanda Chaffey.

source: http://www.tv-eh.com/2009/08/14/showcase-picks-up-lost-girl/

I leave the decision on what to do with these edits up to you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

AvatarOfHermes (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I am replying improperly - I don't frequent Wiki as often as I should.

I believe Jay Firestone mentions Paul Rapovski as a co-creator in a video interview he did about the Lost Girl. I will try to see if I can dig it up but I am sure he himself said this.

Related comment appears in the article's Talk page. It is where you would reply to it so that other Lost Girl editors can see the convo about it. Wikipedia requires that content be supported with a credible source (e.g. a TV industry article; a press release from the TV network or production company; an interview where a specific quotation about the information appears). The addition of information to an article goes hand-in-hand with the inclusion of a source to support it. If information about the history of a TV series cannot be verified, it cannot remain. That's the Wikipedia way. (P.S. Wikipedia is not a "Wiki".) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

AvatarOfHermes (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Ok, I found the article and looks like I was incorrect and Paul Rapovski is not mentioned as developer. Lets take that out.

Top GEar

So why should it be left how you think it would be, you need consensus too?Contributer111 (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The current version of the article already has consensus. As the content is under discussion, you need consensus to change the article from the status quo. The reason the dates are included have been explained to you and are outlined in the note that was added as part of the discussion; while the Stig has been in the series since the first episode, he has only been a presenter since the second. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The King of Queens

"seasons should actually be used"

I agree, but since years were already used, I kept it going for consistency. I don't think it really matters that much, but I also prefer using seasons. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What I wrote was really a note for posterity, rather than a comment on your edit. We use seasons because fiction is always treated in the present and therefore years don't mean anything. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Better Call Saul

Hey, buddy. If you get a minute, would you swing by the article for Better Call Saul along with Better Call Saul (season 1), and have a look at what's going on. We've got a couple novices trying to set up a season article (there's not even an episode list article yet, and the show is eight episodes old), and things are getting a trifle tense. There's a discussion on the season article talk page, where Drovethrughosts and I are trying to explain that they need to slow down and to understand how/when we handle lists of episodes, but they've got rockets in their shorts (one accused me of hazing him for putting a disruptive template on his talk page.) Anyway, if you're care to add some of your patented clear explanation to the mix, especially of WP:SIZERULE, it might get these two puppies on the right track. --Drmargi (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Arrggghhhhhhh! I'm getting so sick of newbs screwing up articles at the moment. Even some supposedly experienced editors don't bother checking edit summaries. Sorry, I just had to rant. I'll be over there as soon as I'm done with American Dad! --AussieLegend (✉) 16:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Rant away. These two at least want to do the right thing, and the month old editor is paying attention, if a trifle touchy. That's why I thought I'd invite you to join the fray -- you handle these editors so well. --Drmargi (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you add this to watchlist for a few days

Hey Aussie, would you please add Power Rangers: Mystic Force to your watchlist for a few days. An IP keeps adding unnecessary linebreaks to the cast list and converting the one complete sentence in the section back into a fragment. I've opened a perfunctory conversation here. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done --AussieLegend (✉) 19:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Danke. I've already opened a discussion/notice on his talk page which he has not participated in, so he's probably going to wind up taking the fast-track to AIV. At that point you're off the hook. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Aussie. I think the guy is deliberately trying to be a pain in the ass. I'm far enough along now that the next time he does it, I could send him to AIV and/or have the page protected. Unless you think it's a better plan to go the AN3 route. I typically get shitty response at ANI/AN3 with reports that stale out after three days and get purged. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I reported someone in a similar situation to AIV the other day and was told it would be better to go to AN3 so I've drafted an AN3 report for this one. When he edits again I'll update and submit. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Some admins can be so frickin' lazy—it's like some of them have no appreciation for the time we put in, and that the only recourse we have for quick resolutions is AIV. "Thanks for your detailed report, please file it elsewhere." That's just idiotic. Intentional disruption and vandalism are the same crap. At this point I only go to ANI if the editor has been generally helpful, but stubborn. Everything else is vandalism, and it's a waste of time to sit and wait for three days to see if anyone's responded yet at ANI, meanwhile, the disruptive user is still doing the thing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Monet Monico

The biography for Monet Monico was based off another biography but it was still written originally by me. Nevertheless, I have cited the sources for this biography. It is really important to me that this article stay posted. If there are any other problems regarding this, please contact me and I will do my best to remedy them as soon as I can. Finally, I believe Monet is a notable person as she has a background in both music,and acting. Her IMDB page lists a numerous amount of projects she has worked in, and that is excluding her concert tours in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadifarah (talk • contribs) 11:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

propose merge from Adelaide–Crafers Highway to South Eastern Freeway

As a past editor of at least one of the articles, you may wish to comment at Talk:South Eastern Freeway#2015 Merge proposal for a new proposal to merge these two articles as it appears the government now considers it to be all one road. As there will be quite a bit of work, I decided to consult before being bold. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hey, unrelated to anything, I've nominated one of our colleagues for recognition. [13] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Awww man... Serious bummer. What an asshole I am. [14]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've seen contradictory editing from Finealt's socks. I think he wants to do the right thing but just can't control himself. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've always figured they were trying to hide their disruption with good-hand edits, but maybe for some of them it's lack of control, like you say. Very confusing. HoshiNoKaabii2000 is another example. I'd be happy to welcome him back if he'd take the Standard Offer, cop to his nonsense and promise to go straight, but I don't think he can help it. Like many of these sock jobs, they've convinced themselves that they're like fuckin' Robin Hoods or noble rebels sticking it to The Man or something, rather than seeing themselves as punk assholes who just cause more work for the janitors by overflowing the toilets. Glad I'm not growing up in this confusing time. Also sorry for the swearing, but I felt it was appropriate and we rarely get to blow off steam. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sydney Opera House

Either provide clearly justified MoS evidence for your dubious claim that italics are acceptable for venue titles or stop your attempted ownership of this article. You might also try discussion on the talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have already responded on the article's talk page. Stop edit-wartring and discuss! --AussieLegend (✉) 14:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In case you don't realise, it takes more than one editor to edit war. Afterwriting (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it does, but you're doing the lions share here, as well as making baseless allegations, accusing me of not discussing, when I had, and not providing support for my claims, when I had. All the while you were busy edit warring and not discussing, as the edit histories prove:

1. 13:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC) - I responded in your thread on the article's talk page.
2. 13:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC) - I reverted the article to the status quo with an appropriate edit summary while your disputed edits are under discussion
3. 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC) - you reverted the article to your preferred version
4. 13:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC) - I posted the edit-warring warning above
5. 13:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC) - you posted to my talk page
6. 14:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC) - You posted above, accusing me of "neither discussing the issue or providing any support for your dubious claims" when, in fact, I had discussed with a link to the MOS and a quote from it 14 minutes earlier
7. 14:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC) - You have continued edit-warring at the article

All of this happened before you bothered responding at the article's talk page, which you didn't do until 28 minutes after my post on the article's talk page.[15] --AussieLegend (✉) 14:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Aussie projects
Thank you for quality articles on your well organised projects, such as the lists of rivers of New South Wales, for vivid images, for fighting vandalism, and for clarifying "An infobox is not trivia, it's a summary of pertinent points about the subject." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 445th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Lost Girl *Sexuality* section rewritten

From 802 words to 395. And moved to a different location per WP:MOSTV.
After seeing some other TV series articles in Wikipedia, I have a question about the article's layout: Doesn't the episodes table (currently a separate section as "Episodes") belong under the Plot section, before Season 1 (2010)? I leave the moving, if necessary, to your consideration. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-free images on sub-pages?

Hi Aussie, can you confirm whether or not this was a sound edit? My memory is that we can only use logos on the main article, not sub-pages. Es correct? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct! The file also lacked a fair use rationale for that article. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Per usual, thank you sir. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Is "NCIS: New Orleans (season 1)" appropriate?

I am not extremely knowledgeable on this topic, but usually most articles wait for a few seasons to create an article for each one, right? It seems like an IP took the redirect I made for NCIS: New Orleans (season 1) and started to make an article. I thought you probably would know if it is appropriate or not. I believe it is not needed, but that is me.

He also just went ahead and did this. SAJ (T) 17:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's far too early for season articles, or even a list of episodes. I've reverted. He has made several other dubious edits that need to be looked at. I'll do so tomorrow unless somebody beats me to it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for all the editing work you've been doing on Animal attacks. I have found this website which has helped me find news articles of interest on this topic. I thought you might be interested. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Please take a look at the article Let's Dance 2015. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

And, 2007 Hitman case, thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

You may be interested in seeing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Busy Moose. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you copy my SPI draft? ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 15:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What draft, where? No. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

'Twas a joke. It's in a text file on my computer. Your SPI is almost exactly what I said. Obviously, great minds think alike. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Mythbusters edit

I understand the policy of NOR, but the fact that Mythbusters clearly used blanks in the official Discovery page video, brings question to the accuracy of their testing. My edit to the page is therefore relevant, even if no other source confirms it. Since I am unable to upload a screen capture, people may confirm for themselves reliably with the links provided.

And please, no need to be so hostile. I edited, which you reverted and warned me. I then edited with supporting links, as once again, this Mythbusters non mention of blanks brings question to this testing. No need to threaten with a block for what you think is disruptive editing.

Stormer1809 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stormer1809: I don't believe that you do understand NOR. When I reverted you the first time I pointed to NOR,[16] when I reverted you the second tiome I specifically said that it was still original research because it wasn't in the episode.[17] I also clarified this on your talk page when I said that at no time was it stated in the episode and "without a citation from a reliable source to confirm this claim, your edit constitutes original research".[18] That should have been clear enough but then you made this edit which is personal analysis and therefore still very much original research. It is not clear that they used blanks, you have to closely analyse the video to determine that, which is why I've had to clarify the requirements further.[19] You need to revert your edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Reversing a redirect

Help! The article for the Croatian-American actor Goran Visnjic is under his name with diacritical marks he's long dropped, WP:COMMONNAME applies, and he's now a US citizen with his name legally changed to the version w/o diacritics. I've contended for years that his article should be under the spelling by which he's best known, which it's not. The last time the diacritic set ganged up and moved it back, they put in a redirect; how do I reverse it so the name diacritics redirects to the article w/o? Is it just a cut-and-paste job? I can't image it's that simple because of the talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The page was protected in 2010 after you and another editor had made multiple moves, by an administrator who moved the page back to Goran Visnjic. That same administrator had started a discussion on the talk page that has not been attended by any other editor. To move this page back you need to start a page move discussion and gain consensus for the move. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Grazie. Fresh eyes always help. I never saw the discussion you reference to my best recollection. There was one where the diacritics set got a bit testy, but I don't recall an admin one. That's my next stop. --Drmargi (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

At the limit

I'm about at my limit with this editor. He apparently has no concept of what a character list is supposed to be, choosing instead, over and over again, to re-hash plot summaries into the character descriptions indiscriminately. It's mind-boggling. He's prolific, but seemingly has no ability to discriminate between useful information and rambling, overly detailed prose. Look at this text wall. I gave up editing this article because I couldn't deal with the cruft. See talk page for some of my many numerous chats with him about cruft—oh, and the absurd wikilinking—as if people don't know what a "dog", "rat", or "cat" is. Jesus. </rant> Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You took your time. I don't think he is competent enough to edit Wikipedia at all. I've actually bitched about him to another editor so I know it's not just us that are sick of him. Funnily enough, only a few days ago I was having issues with a similar editor and couldn't remember the name of this one. (It's been about 9 months since we last interacted.[20] It amazes me than an editor with such a long history still can't get things right. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I know that we've groused about him before. Does he think an article like that Turtles one will ever reach GA? What's the best venue for this sort of thing? RFC/U? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That's probably the best venue. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem child

Heya, FYI, this IP you're dealing with, 96.255.215.253, I believe is the one I call "The Destructive Destroyer Vandal". SummerPhD might remember this girl. (I believe it's a girl.) The user has been active since at least 2013, I think.

• 108.48.144.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Gaithersburg, Maryland, US; Verizon FiOS
• 108.48.85.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Gaithersburg, MD; Verizon FiOS
• 108.51.173.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Gaithersburg, MD; Verizon FiOS
• 108.10.240.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - La Quinta, California; Verizon FiOS - this one is weird since it's on the other side of the country. Not sure about this.

ANIs: [21][22].

Past MO has included ridiculously embellished prose, usually repetitive (hence the appellation) like "waist-length curly, bushy, and bright fiery orange mane of hair" and "slender, slim body". Tends to delete talk page warnings without any reply. I'd probably just send them to ANI again or AIV if you can get an open-minded admin. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Destructive Destroyer Vandal" Well, I suppose The Verizon vandal™ is taken. What is it with Verizon? --AussieLegend (✉) 20:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh that's right, we've spoken about this before, no? Maybe I brought it up at the WikiProject. If you want me to start the ANI, I don't mind. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

In the past we did talk about them repeatedly before. Several times and on more than one occasion. Based on behavior and articles selected, I think "child" is an apt inclusion in the name. I have nothing particularly helpful to add. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Heheh. A good chuckle hath I. I'm working on the write-up report for the Administrative Noticeboard ANI. Probably is a child, I agree, but let's keep in mind they're 2 years older and should be at least slightly more competent. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, kids! Aussie, SummerPhD, the ANI is here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Ireland and NI station merges

I was looking at the TfDs of these two, and I think it's unfortunate your advice wasn't heeded; a merge with {{Infobox GB station}} would have been a much more sensible alternative - at this time, at least. I'm still cleaning {{Infobox station}} after these two merges, though we'll be forever saddled with the four British railway company parameters, by the looks of it. Alakzi (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi:Well, at least somebody out there can see the sense of it. Unfortunately, there's one editor out there who seems more interested in getting everyone to use {{Infobox everything}} and he seems to be getting away with it. Unfortunately, the supporters of Infobox GB station weren't willing to step up, and they'll no doubt be the first to whinge when that infobox is proposed for merge. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering....

We've been without power here since 3:30AM today (It's now nearly 7PM), like 200,000 other homes in the Hunter, Central Coast and Sydney regions, as the result of an "East Coast Low" that has been battering the coast. As a result, I'm on a forced Wikibreak until further notice. They tell us that we may have power tomorrow. I just hope the generator fuel lasts. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Power outages suck major. Stay strong, homie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There is always something to laugh at in times of adversity. On one day we had 301.4 mm (12 in) of rain and some very strong winds that tore apart a tree in the back yard. All of the large branches fell on the other side of our fence on public land. A couple hit the fence but didn't damage it. I was really worried about the new shed I had built last year but all of the branches missed it. My little generator was having a hard time of it, and I ran out of oil so I didn't know what I was going to do for power. (I have two freezers and the fridge to worry about) Last night I decided to go for a drive to see if I could find somewhere to get petrol and oil and found a petrol station with lights blazing so I filled up. 2km down the road a hardware store was selling generators and oil. I got my brand new generator home, spent 20mins filling it with oil and got it online. Fortunately it's been cold so the fridge and freezers hadn't defrosted and the new generator was able to handle them all. I then went out and got 60 more litres of petrol and some more oil. That done I settled in to watch TV while the freezers refroze. About 12:30am I decided that was as late as I dare keep the generator running, but when I went outside the street lights were back on. Now I have two fully fuelled generators and enough petrol to keep my going for a while, but no need for them. Unfortunately the phone line is still out the wireless internet is flaky. Oh well, I enjoyed the ice cream. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Does this happen regularly/seasonally? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

They keep calling this a "one in a decade storm" but I've never seen anything like it before. We've never lost power for more than 12 hours (even then it was a planned outage), and while the local flood plain has flooded to almost this extent twice since I moved here in 1997, once in 2002 and then again in 2007, it's never been this high. The damage wasn't this bad in the 1989 Newcastle earthquake, when the Newcastle CBD looked like Beirut and was shut down for 2 weeks. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

May

I do apologise - you are quite right that May has only ruled out returning if Clarkson is absent. However I think you will see that I started the thread on the talk page, so this is not true that I hadn't consulted. Contributer111 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Clearly though, you did not bother reading the comments that I had made on the talk page, or the response by Aw16. Nor did you take heed of my edit summary stating "Citation used to confirm Wilman's departure says May is still in discussions - we can't have it both ways" or the changes that I made before you jumped to revert and, even though you acknowledge that I am correct, you have not reverted your edit. This is the sort of editing that nearly resulted in a block in March. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you weren't rude - as far as I can see you didn't get a consensus on the Talk page either, I have acknowledged that you are correct so lets leave it at that. Many thanks Contributer111 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

When you make claims that are not backed up by facts, you have to expect to be called out on it. You don't need consensus to make edits that ensure our articles are compliant with WP:V, MOS:BLP, WP:NOR and numerous other policies and guidelines. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

News from Hammond on future --> BBC News says hes leaving so can we use this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32437814 Contributer111 (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The source only says "confirmed his intention to walk away". He hasn't actually walked yet, at least not officially, so we can't act on that yet. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory, S08E16 "Notes" revision

In your revision to my edit at 07:39 on 16/Apr/15', you stated that my comment was "not part of the plot summary, or directly relevant to the plot." First, you are wrong about this completely: the questions that Penny/Sheldon asked each other were taken word-for-word from the study I cited. It was also brought back into popular culture after the recent NY Times article was published, coincidentally around the time this episode was released. It is thus reasonable that people would find this, to use your standard, "directly relevant." Just because you don't think about it that way doesn't mean that it should be removed. Finally, my text is succinct and I include reliable sources.

I shouldn't have to explain my edits to you, especially given the above. Please keep this in mind before arbitrarily undoing similar edits.

2601:A:2C00:5F0:BC7C:5841:9C46:3236 (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In the episode Amy said "I read about an experiment". She did not elaborate further. Making the link between that and the study that you referenced constitutes original research, which is not permitted by policy. That type of link is a specific type of original research described at WP:SYNTH. Since the actual study was not directly addressed in the episode, it is not directly relevant to the episode, and should not have been included in the ShortSummary field of {{Episode list}}, which is supposed to be for a "a short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode". Similarly, including information about a quiz in the New York Times, which does not mention The Big Bang Theory at all, is also original research. At the very best what you added is tangential content that does not belong in an episode summary. So no, I did not arbitrarily revert your addition, I removed it in accordance with our policy and guidelines. Another of the guides that we follow is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which says that when an edit of yours is reverted you discuss the issue and reach a consensus as to what edits are acceptable. Discussion is not a one-sided process. You do not revert to your preferred version of an article.[23] and then explain why your edits are acceptable,[24] as you've done here. You wait until there is consensus for opposed edits. And, when another editor reverts your edits,[25] you don't continue to revert.[26] That is edit-warring, which is disruptive, and may result in you being blocked if you persist. Please also note that, during content disputes, the status quo prevails. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible kid with learning issues?

Hi Aussie, re: these talk page comments by TheLegoCat, assuming the best of faith, it appears that the kid is not adequately skilled for Wikipedia editing, but that they may be monitored by a parent. I don't think this should dictate decisions we make about inappropriate edits, but it might be something to keep in the back of our heads. Unless I'm being a fool for assuming good faith, which naturally I hope that I am not...but the IP editor did ask that the IP be blocked at one point to send a message to the kid. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those posts. It's certainly worth being aware of. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. It might be a way for us to help educate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Restaurant Impossible Page

Hey! Thanks for fixing my corrections on the Restaurant Impossible page. I am new to the editing process and don't know much about editing source code and stuff. I updated the page using the beta editing software which is much easier, but I don't know how to add color or center align stuff. If you can do that for me, or explain to me, that would be assume. Thanks! Gameshows (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Countries situated entirely in the Southern Hemisphere

Why do you think the category on countries in the Southern Hemisphere is not very useful? I think it is very useful in geography. Thebuck093 (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't define countries on whether or not they're entirely in one hemisphere of the other. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting help with tables

Hi Aussie, I noticed Luigi's good faith edit at List of Evil Con Carne episodes, but I'm not sure the table is really working to the best of its ability. (It sure is a sight with all that boldface, and I suspect AltTitle is not being used correctly.) I'm not good with tables—all those template parameters get me brain all jumbly-wumbly!—so that's why I need your help. I'm thinking of something with more rowspans, akin to the following, except we'd ideally combine all the repetitive data, like identical air dates and identical writers and we still need an area for episode summaries to intuitively go. Also I didn't use any of the typical fields like DirectedBy or WrittenBy. (See complaint above.) Got any suggestions?

No. in series	No. in season	Title	Directed by	Written by	Storyboarded by	Original air date	Prod. code
1	1	"Gutless!"	Juli Hashiguchi	Gord Zajac	Mucci Fassett	July 11, 2003	07
		"Day of the Dreadbot"	Juli Hashiguchi	Gord Zajac	Brian Kindregan	July 11, 2003	07
		"League of Destruction"	Pat Shinagawa	Gord Zajac	Alex Almaguer	July 11, 2003	07

As usual, thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be best to break the list into individual episodes as you've done above.

No. in series	No. in season	Title	Directed by	Written by	Storyboarded by	Original air date	Prod. code
1	1a	"Gutless!"	Juli Hashiguchi	Gord Zajac	Mucci Fassett	July 11, 2003 (2003-07-11)	07
While planning to invade Buckingham Palace in Great Britain, Hector's stomach falls ill and makes him lose confidence in the plan.
1	1b	"Day of the Dreadbot"	Juli Hashiguchi	Gord Zajac	Brian Kindregan	July 11, 2003 (2003-07-11)	07
Hector gets fed up with his army and replaces it with robots, which overthrow the Evil Con Carne island.
1	1c	"League of Destruction"	Pat Shinagawa	Gord Zajac	Alex Almaguer	July 11, 2003 (2003-07-11)	07
Hector believes that all of the evil geniuses in the world are keeping each other from conquering the Earth, so he unites them all to come up with an ultimate plan. All of the evil geniuses end up arguing, instead.

That gets rid of all of the bolding and horizontal rules. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll pitch that version. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Melissa & Joey

Stop it AussieLegend, instead of spending your time arguing, citing and removing everyone else's contributions try adding some new content instead. You do not own that article. Is it really important to remove a tag for Category:2015 American television series endings when the series is indeed ending, or removing a short summary of the next upcoming episode. You have gone way overboard. Wikipedia is going to your head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PR10000 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 30 April 2015‎ (UTC)

As I indicated on your talk page,[27] your addition was removed because you added innacurate and misleading content to a citation and a WP:CRYSTAL episode summary for an episode that we won't see for another 5 weeks.[28] I'm sorry if you don't like that but we don't mislead readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It's nice that you wish to add new content and that's very welcome when it's appropriate, but you need to consider that the policies of Wikipedia apply to everything you write and some of us are particularly concerned about keeping the wrong edits out of the articles. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)