User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

spurious period

What does that mean and why did you remove the two recurring stars I added for the season 11 premiere? There isn't anywhere else to put them. 65.92.26.122 (talk)

The spurious period was a period that wasn't supposed to be there. It was between the date and the reference.[1] Recurring cast go in the cast table in the season article. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Where????? 216.113.38.98 (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Where what? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm lost and I'll try again to add it with the summary. 76.66.159.172 (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Reopening JAG as part of NCIS discussion

I am reopening the discussion of JAG being part of the NCIS franchise. LA If you reply here, please {{Ping}} me. @ 13:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVNOW

Yes, you are right - looks like a Firefox problem.

RJ4 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

BF years as main in infobox

Thanks for the thanks. After the editor's comment on my talk page, I was already headed here to ask about this business of BF for years as main cast. The editor doing it seemed to think it was pretty standard, but I haven't seen it. Has there been some discussion, or is this one of those crufty things that pops up on some of these more heavily edited shows? ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen it before so it struck me as unusual at best. Mind you, I've only been editing Wikipedia for 12 years. ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what I figured; if you hadn't seen it, it couldn't be too standard. I don't see the point; it probably started with the L&O brigade, then traveled. There's no key to what the BF means, so it's nonsense. Heck, not all infoboxes include the years in-cast. NCIS's don't. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

2028 Olympics infobox

A favor? Would you take a peek at the template for the 2028 Summer Olympics infobox? It's not displaying the name of the city correctly (omitting California) and the dates. I haven't a clue what's wrong. The LA 32 and LA 84 articles display everything properly. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Sorry I took so long to get to this. As always happens, the infobox has been copied from previous years instead of using a fresh copy and, as also always happens, errors crept in. I've edited the two sub-templates of {{Infobox Olympic games}} that needed to be edited and moved all the data over to the new infobox so it should look right now. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That's why I always come to you when these problems arise; you have the skills. I have only learn-by-doing knowledge, and it's spotty at best. I couldn't find the template, much less fix it. It's perfect now! Thank you!! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit of a messy template with data in several locations (there are 5 sub-templates) making it a good candidate for Wikidata. When you want to find an infobox template, just look at what it's called in the article and replace "{{" with "Template:". "{{Infobox Olympic games" becomes "Template:Infobox Olympic games". The sub-templates are all listed in the instructions. Sadly, that's not true for all. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

If there is civil discussion occurring at the same time, and the text is changing, it's not an edit war. And really? WP:DTTR?

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. Nfitz (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not an edit war. I've removed part of the material the other user has found objectionable, while I await their clarification on what theirissue is. And the other user claimed that title isn't shown at that source. But it clearly is, and I provided [a JPG showing it, and had no objection after I provided proof. What are you seeing that's not this? Nfitz (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• LOL, I think I've realised the problem. Because Canada has 6 different time zones, their website adjusts the schedule to your time zone. I just changed my computer clock to Australian Eastern Standard Time - GMT+10 from North American Eastern Daylight Time (GMT-4) and it now shows it at Monday September 25 at 11:30 AM! 14 hours later! Do you see it now? Nfitz (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• When I see two experienced editors reverting each other more than once instead of discussing on the talk page, I find that to be more serious than a new editor doing the same. IMO that's more justification for a warning, templated or otherwise. As for the ref, the timezone shown on the listing is "ET" but, yes, it does appear on Monday. Still not a good source. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Glad you see it - not sure why not visible in Australia. Yes, always says ET. I started to take code apart, to see if I could figure out better URL - I didn't, but I did notice it will always say ET no matter what. Oops.

But why not a good source? It's the TV listings of the originating broadcaster, part of the biggest media company in the nation. I see other programs referenced to whatever pops up on BBC1's website, without issue. Nfitz (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, hang on. The primary source I listed isn't good, but a secondary source, that only sources to the same primary source is good? Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is clear: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Because the display is not straightforward, a secondary source is needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There was no interpretation. It's a simple 1-week TV schedule for only one channel. You look at it. You read the show and episode title. What is there to interpret? No secondary source is necessary! Though the point is moot - and I doubt they'll ever get that far behind the TV channels again. Nfitz (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't make "straightforward, descriptive statements". The fact that someone can look at the page and find a program listed on a totally different day to which the program airs means they have to interpret what the source says. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It shows what's currently airing, in which time slot, with a big blue "Live Now". It's pretty obvious it's adjusting to local time. It's a North American show, and a North American website. It's not going to be sliding to different days, except for some who should be very well aware that they are not on North American time. But the whole thing is moot ... there's no point debating to death. Nfitz (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

List of countries and dependencies by population

Hello. Why did you revert my edit? The population clock no longer exists, just as I said in my edit summary when I removed it. It was a temporary thing, used only for a couple of months when the population of Sweden crossed the 10 million barrier (check the source for the clock in the version you reverted to, or the front page of Statistiska Centralbyrån). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thomas.W I have explained why on your talk page. The data template, not the article should be updated. Please don't edit war when you are reverted. Per WP:BRD, discuss on the article's talk page and, while discussion is underway, the status quo remains per WP:STATUSQUO. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• The data template is a calculation that approximates the numbers of each country's population clock, if there is one, but the Swedish population clock no longer exists, meaning that Sweden now requires a manual update. Check the raw code for the list article, countries with a population clock, such as the US, use a template, but countries without a population clock, such as Russia, do not use a template, and need to be updated manually. So stop restoring the old version of the article, and self-revert to the correct version, i.e. my version. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Or to make things even more clear: The data templates, one for each country that has a population clock, approximates the population clock based on numbers entered into the template, and must, since it doesn't get the numbers from any official website, be checked against the "real" population clock (= the source given in the list) at regular intervals, to make sure that the approximation isn't way off target. But since Sweden no longer has a population clock (and the one they had was very unpredictable since its "tick rate" was changed at irregular intervals...) the approximation can no longer be checked (= the numbers can no longer be verified). Which is why I removed it, and replaced it with the monthly population census (= data from a computerised population register) that Statistics Sweden publish... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC closed

I have closed a RFC that you participated heavily in at Talk:Family_Guy#RfC:_Remove_.22adult.22_as_a_descriptor_from_the_opening_sentence. The result was that "adult animated sitcom" is unacceptably ambiguous. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to raise them at my talk page. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

NCIS Characters; Dr Mallard and Jimmy Palmer

When I added "Dr" to Jimmy Palmer's heading, you removed it saying "We use the common name in headings". So I removed Ducky's "Dr". You recently reverted that edit, adding the "Dr" back to Ducky. Why does Ducky get the Dr and Palmer doesn't? PUNKMINKIS (TALKYTALK) 00:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy has always been called "Jimmy". Mallard has been commonly been called both "Dr Mallard" and "Ducky". In such a case we cater for both. Some characters have more than one common name. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Opinion?

Hi, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on a dispute I'm having with two other editors about whether Tracy Spiridakos (the new main cast member on Chicago P.D. (TV series)) was recurring or main during Chicago P.D. (season 4)? I personally think she is recurring however the other two think that she is only a guest. Per the guidlines at WP:TVCAST "A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status." They are using the argument that she only appeared in three episodes which is not enough to be considered recurring however when looking at many sources some call her recurring ([2] and [3]), some call her guest ([4] and [5]), however some don't specify at all ([6] and [7]). I'm not quite sure what I should at this point and I am trying to avoid getting in an edit war (although I think it already kinda is one). Do you have an opinion on this or should I bring it up over at a place like request for comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoctorWho (talk • contribs) 04:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Once is a guest, three times is recurring if they have the same role and story arc. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And she does have the same role and story ark however if I change it back the other two will just revert it.TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Your latest change to recurring wasn't reverted, one editor just reverted all of the references that you added. I've restored one for now. If you think there is a better ref in the group, use that instead. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I meant the one on Tracy Spiridakos was reverted TheDoctorWho (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

If you choose not to participate can you please note that here or on the appropriate section at the dispute resolution noticeboard so that the discussion can continue on. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been tied up with other issues but I will be participating when I get the chance. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Crossing / Obsession

Thank you for the information. We have noted the suggestions and will definitely make sure to make those changes and rectify all errors. Apologies for the mistakes, we are fairly new to Wikipedia Posting. The username request has been done. User talk:Nikster360 Nikster360 (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The Last Man on Earth (TV series)

Regarding your undo of my edit on this article of Oct 3 2017:
If the character now goes by "Tandy" because of another Phil, then did Carol leave with Phil or with Tandy, return with Phil or with Tandy, and who's child is she having? As presently written it doesn't make sense, especially as the name "Tandy" is not used anywhere other than the instance I changed, and in the brief parenthetical under Phil's character entry. Can you make it make sense within the plot of the show? - 216.195.128.250 (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Australian place/mapdata

do you need these templates (Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Infobox Australian place/mapdata)? I can't see where they are being used. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it was an experiment that never went anywhere. I'd actually forgotten about it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

All are now nominated for deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Rugrats Air Dates

TVGuide's air dates are wrong. If you look at the "Still Babies After All These Years" special, they talk about some episodes which are accompanied by air dates, and they disagree with TVGuide's airdates and agree with iTunes's air dates. For example, the special itself says "I Remember Melville" aired November 5, 1994 rather than May 15, 1994. Jon23812 (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jon23812: The air dates in the article have been a concern for a long time with all sorts of contradictory dates being added by various editors. For this reason I raised the matter at WT:TV back in 2015.[8] I was able to confirm that the dates shown in TV Guide were generally accurate, at least for the early seasons that I checked, although Zap2It was more accurate for some episodes. The dates that I did confirm contradict with itunes so it seems a questionable source, although it's no worse than some sources. The problem is that there appears to be no single completely accurate source. The special you mentioned is an itunes source, so it's only natural that it agrees with itunes, but that doesn't mean it's more accurate than the other sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sore Loser?

Do you think you "lost" an edit war? At 5:23, I added a special to the special section (bold, I know), which you removed six minutes later with the comment that Navboxes should include links. That's bullshit, they should include whatever they promise to include.

Anyway, at 16:23 I added the special with a link, after which you templated me at 16:29. For what? Do you problems to cope with the fact that you are not the only editor on Wikipedia?

Really, please tell me, for what?----217.248.50.171 (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have explained the problem with your edits on your talk page. The template is on my watchlist, which I check regularly, so I tend to notice changes quickly, and I act equally as quickly when the changes are inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Eureka

Hi Aussie, are you happy to go through Eureka episode list to pick up any glitches? I was doing that but we'll have edit conflict. If you can do it then I would be glad to move on. Let me know, kind regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

If you still have edits to make, please continue to do so. I was just fixing some of the obvious arrors that I noticed. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Top Gear: Middle East Special

Hi there,

Can you clarify what you intended by this edit? It seems to have reverted my edits, and introduced at least one spelling error? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, it looks like the result of a save with an outstanding edit conflict (revision of page being edited is older than the most recent revision). Have tried to rescue everything in Special:Diff/806698848. —Sladen (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea how that happened, but it appears that Sladen has fixed it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Smashing. I figured it was a glitch but as you referenced a template I didn't want to do anything myself until I knew what was going on. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with adding links to primetime schedules?

I just thought it would be nice to link episodes lists to prime time schedules so people would know when those shows were broadcast. --TVBuff90 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite simply, MOS:HEADINGS says not to do it. If you'd like a list of reasons why, I'd suggest you ask at the talk page of that part of the MOS. It's something that has had wide consensus for a very long time, which is why you don't see it happening. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Iron Chef America and related

When you have a minute, would you look at a little squabble about how an early, sort-lived syndicated version of the Japanese show Iron Chef by the name of Iron Chef USA is, or is not, related to an entirely independent adaptation of the Japanese show called Iron Chef America (produced by Food Network) and its progeny? An editor keeps adding Iron Chef USA to the list of related shows on the various Iron Chef America articles (there are four), despite Iron Chef USA having no connection to other than the original Japanese show. I know you've sorted out these "what is related?" issues with other series in the past; your help with this one would be appreciated. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I can but this seems familiar. Did you raise this at WT:TV or did I see it somewhere else? The article seems to have notability issues. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It may remind you of the old garbage with Kitchen Nightmares. I wouldn't have raised anything at WT:TV, but someone else might have. The issue is largely with one editor who thinks they're all related. I removed them all and opened a discussion, but he just reverted and didn't discuss. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Red Forman

I didn't realize that what I added was unnecessary or inappropriate, if you will. I suppose that I should have read up on the guidelines first. I just thought it was interesting that something like a military career, wasn't thought through thoroughly, in terms of getting the characters age correct, etc. Thank you. Basskent77 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleting gay category from Brooklyn Nine-Nine

Hello, Aussie. The Category:Gay-related television programs identifies that a TV series (or TV movie) includes a gay male character. It does not define the series as a Gay (or LGBT) series. Captain Ray Holt is a gay man. Therefore, the category is appropriate. FYI, read: Fox's Newest Cop Comedy Is Quietly Breaking Ground. I've discovered that including the category has set many editor hairs on fire. I would like to believe that it's because they are unaware about everything involving the series they edit. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary As stated in WP:CAT, categories should be defining. Merely including something in an episode, or even several episodes, doesn't justify including a TV series in the category. If the relationship of Holt was treated significantly then there might be justification but his relationship is treated no differently to other relationships in the series. This is different to something like Will & Grace, where main characters are gay and there is a significant slant toward gay relationships. If we include Brooklyn Nine-Nine in that category then we should also include it in Category:Heterosexual-related television programs. Perhaps the reason that other editors like @Gareth Griffith-Jones, Drovethrughosts, MPS1992, and Masem: have presented opposition is that they understand that categories should be defining and not simply inclusionist. This category should really not even exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Right at the top of WP:CAT is states:

• This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline.
  It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

Which brings to mind: WP:IGNORE.

I'm going to propose that the categories be re-titled to substitute the word "related" with "inclusive". Because I, along with many editors and readers, find it beneficial to find/learn what TV series are LGBT-inclusive. I'm sure the straight community will not feel slighted if the 99% of television programs with heterosexual characters are not identified with a special heterosexual category. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE is not something that you can use at will to circumvent guidelines and policies, just to make things more convenient. You need to have solid justification to use WP:IGNORE. WP:CAT has wide consensus and states "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." Note specific use of "defining". You need to justify why you category shouldn't be defining and "it's convenient" isn't good justification. If you look at the parent of your category, Category:LGBT-related television programs you'll see that it says "For television programming that feature LGBT characters and episodes see Lists of television programs with LGBT characters." That's where the information that you're after belongs, not in a category. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, AussieLegend. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, AussieLegend. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New section intended to be created

Can you please create this category?:

• Category:Madagascar (franchise)

--2601:2C0:C280:21A0:C43A:C04C:1F85:29A5 (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Australian place

Hi AussieLegend. Hope you are well. I am trying to make sense of a multitude of templates relating to inhabited entities. Specifically, I am trying to refine the terminology being used in the translation of these templates into Portuguese and I am approaching you after seing your name here in the hope that you might shed some light. With most other templates you can just replace the name of the country and hit enter and it works, because the rest of the URL is the same. However, with Australian place you can't — there is no "Canadian place", "Belgian place", "French place" etc.. Is there something particular about Australia that it has this template that is not used for other countries? And I ask that fully aware that it does say that "The infobox has been extensively customised for Australia". How does "place" differ from "location", especially taking into account that Categories:Places is says that "The main article for this category is Location (geography)"? Thanks for your time, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay but I've been busy for the past week so my time here is limited. I will get back to you on this, soon I hope. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Like they say in Australia, "G'day"...

I appreciate you reverting the article for the Family Guy episode "The D in Apartment 23" into a redirect for the Season 16 article, but I don't really see a reason why. Quite honestly, I think individual Family Guy episode articles still need to happen on Wikipedia.

By the way, I did the same for the "Petey IV" article, and you'd probably revert that article into a redirect, too. DecaTilde 18:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason was stated by the editor who originally redirected the article in his edit summary.[9] Notability was not established. My edit summary also noted that the article fails WP:PLOT. The article was a plot summary and nothing more. Since it also fails to establish notability of the subject it simply shouldn't exist. Petey IV is worse. It doesn't establish notability, is almost entirely a plot summary, and that summary is far too long, almost twice as long as it should be. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

imdb is not a reliable source

You removed a link on Shot in the Dark (TV series) stating that imdb is not a reliable source. However, I will point you to what the current essay and established norms are on the use of IMDB is a reliable source for. Wikipedia:Citing IMDb "This page in a nutshell: Anecdotes, trivia, and unreleased film information from IMDb do not meet the reliable sources guideline. The IMDb should be used only as a tertiary source for hard data on released films." The source as used by the IMDB was for the simple release date of the show. This does fall with in the reliable approved use of the IMDB, I request that you place back the cite on your own, within 3 days. If not I will replace it. Thank you69.58.44.20 (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

69.58.44.20, tertiary sources cannot be used as references, which is why the citation was removed. I suggest you look at the previous discussions at WP:RSN as well as WP:TERTIARY. The general consensus is that imdb is NOT a reliable source, which is what the essay is saying. It simply isn't a valid reference. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If you read all of the back and forth on IMDB it states clearly. "I think it actually is reliable for a lot of stuff. Not user comments, trivia, mini bio, and some of the other random user generated stuff. I think the main problem, is we aren't sure which parts are provided by media companies and entered by paid staff, and which parts are purely user generated. I don't think anyones figured which parts are which, anyways. As Camelbinky points out, a lot of people like to jump on imdb, because they would prefer that it not be a reliable source. People would jump at the chance to add a bunch of reliable info about pop culture from an easy to use source like imdb, and some people don't think that's encyclopedic. I'm sure we'll hear some stern "no"s in a bit. I wish instead we would figure out which parts are reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)"

"IMDB, is also cited by a ton of reliable sources.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC) And some RSs saying IMDB is reliable.[30][31][32][33] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)"

So I have read them, and I know what the Essay says. You are in a minority view of them not being a reliable source for simple information. I followed the pillar and gave you credit, now your just out to try to force your view on other people that have already debated this and came up with a brokered solution. As I stated in my comment, if you don't put it back I will. Also if you start and edit war, I will forward it to the admins. I have pointed you to the Essay as there is no offical gudie on wiki. You have an axe to grind against IMDB, I have looked at other edits you have done, and what started to be edit wars. Every time I get back into editing wiki, I run into a user like you with an ax to grind and gets old. You shove off other good editors because you refuse to read all the rules/notice/essays. If you have something saying IMDB is not allowed for a reliable source we can talk, but every thing I read shows it is debated, and if you're not citing user comments or other user sumbitted connent. Again, you have an ax to gride. The site was used for linking to the producers and to the start date. Staff edits on IMDB.Jsgoodrich (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

(Jaguar comment) As a third party, I never have seen IMdB accepted as a source for anything, not even simple information—even if information like release dates is a disputed use. Generally, the mainstream trend I see for it is, "err on the side of caution and find a source elsewhere." The common stance on it that I've seen is that expressed by WP:FILM on its questionable sources section of its resources page: "IMDb content is mostly user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation, rumor, and hoaxes. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged. [...] So, while itself discouraged as a source, IMDB might provide information leading editors to the preferable reliable sites." Generally, the impression is, "Don't use IMDb. Use it to locate information elsewhere." ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There is some reliable content on imdb but most of it is not, so it's not a good source, especially for things like dates etc, which are all user added, and that's why it's listed as an unreliable source at WP:TVFAQ, it's discouraged at WP:RS/IMDB and why it's specifically listed as an unreliable source at WP:USERG. As for the comments you've quoted from 2009, that doesn't mean that imdb is reliable. Far from it. Several years ago we had an editor using the same arguments to support his insistence on using pifeedback.com. He was indef blocked in 2010 for it. You can see the discussion on that site at WP:RSN. Jsgoodrich, I don't appreciate your threats. If you persist on adding an unreliable source to the article, given all the evidence against it, you'll likely find your threats WP:BOOMERANG. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You know I hold three law degrees and devote my time to making the world, better. From time to time I edit wiki. Then I run into people like you that ignore ever rule on wiki and dig in. Again, you run off editors. I have cited everything that supports IMDB is allowable and you don't like it. In real life, I mediate disputes, and dealing with child custody, and large dollar dispute is simpler than dealing with a keyboard zelat. You have failed to quote a ban on IMDB. What you have said and I quote "There is some reliable content on IMDB" the rule is that don't use IMDB for stuff that is not placed on there be editors.

You know what I find funny, is that WIKI (here) is done by a group of editors, adding content. Yet we see this as allowable and reliable. The people who edit IMDB are just like us doing the same thing. Yet people like you have a bur up your butt, about them. Why I don't know. However, in adding to the wikispace and adding pages, using the IMDB to add a link about a show which is reliable as support is fine. You want to run this to a conflict and have it arbitrated. Lets. Then after we can push for a official policy, which I am sure in the end will be near the essay. Why because it makes the most sense it is common ground. It looks at the largest site for movie information in the world and says, think about what is on IMDB before citing it. It also supports another crowd platform. I am glad you have the ability to sit on wiki all day, between work, teaching, and having a life. I don't get much time to do this anymore. Which is why when I run into a zelot like you. You normally stop me form editing for months. Because I don't want to waste my time.

Notice, I have pointed out what standing rules/guideline and the essay says, you want to take to an extreme which is not the rule. The rule/guideline states "The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged." Notice that word "usually" and "discouraged" see that says, if you can find it somewhere else do. if you can't its allowable. If you can prove that the rule is not what I just said, fine. But you can't because that is the rule. you don't like IMDB because it is user content, when you spend your time on a user created site. See the irony?

Again, it is allowable while discouraged, it is not banned, or not allowed.

Jsgoodrich (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Then I run into people like you that ignore ever rule on wiki and dig in. - Congratulations on your law degrees. I have 360 myself and I've gone back in time with my time machine and killed Hitler and Osama bin Laden. See, you can say anything on the internet but it doesn't mean it's true. What is true is that I have been editing Wikipedia now, constantly, for 12 years and have made 150,000 edits in that time to 33,684 pages. I am well aware of what the rules are and how they are applied and I don't really appreciate it when someone like you, with your 658 edits, comes along trying to make yourself seem like the second coming of Christ, then threatens me and tells me that I don't know the rules. You blew all of your arguments after that. What you've pointed out is an essay. WP:TVFAQ and WP:RS/IMDB are TV and film project guidelines respectively, while WP:USERG is a user content guideline. Another editor has made an unsolicited comment that he's never seen imdb accepted as a source and you ignore him.

you don't like IMDB because it is user content, when you spend your time on a user created site. See the irony? - There is no irony. WP:USERG says Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. If we don't allow Wikipedia as a source, why would we allow imdb? We do allow imdb where the content is clearly generated by staff but where the content is user generated (e.g. episode information including dates) it is not permitted. Note that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core content policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source refers the reader to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for information on how to identify reliable sources. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#User-generated content specifically says "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the Comic Book Database (CBDB.com), content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites." "Generally unacceptable" means that, if you want to use imdb as a source, you have to show that it is staff generated and not user generated. It's as simple as that. As I said earlier, there are plenty of discussions at WP:RSN, like this one. They all say essentially the same thing. Imdb is not a reliable source. If you need a citation for the claim that the program was released on a certain date there are bound to be reliable sources that can be used. You don't need to resort to poor sources like imdb. In any case, a source really isn't needed unless somebody challenges it since the series has already been released. We don't normally include citations for the original release/air date once a program has been released. This whole discussion is really a complete waste of time as it applies to Shot in the Dark (TV series). Oh, could you please learn to indent properly? Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Would it not be a better use of everyone's time to simply provide an alternate source? Or do we not believe that an alternate source is available? DonIago (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source has been added. In this case, it was the simplest thing to complete. But yes, as with Aussie/others, IMDb is not a reliable source, especially when there are so many reliable sources available to cite the release info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The Grand Tour series name header

See also: Talk:The Grand Tour (TV series) § Series section naming

Hi. I changed the headers for the series/season numbers from alphabetical to numerical to follow the convention established on the majority of television series (and individual season) articles for such listings; i.e. headings and titles with series/season number listed numerically, all other body text listed alphabetically. I would like to note that the primary reason for the edit in question was to correct the series number listings in the text body in line with MOS:NUMERAL.

If you could please help me understand if there is something that I have missed, it would be much appreciated.

Regards. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 02:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I agree with Nick, I've never seen the section headers for episode tables listed this way, as "Series/Season TEXT". It's always been "Series/Season NUMBER", and WP:TVSEASONYEAR supports this. -- Alex^TW 02:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There have been/are plenty of articles using that format, which is provided for by MOS:NUMERAL. The examples used at WP:TVSEASONYEAR talk about numbers greater than 9, which is also supported by MOS:NUMERAL. The heading format was originally established with this edit, albeit with incorrect capitalisation. Note that MOS:NUM says "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason", which is why I was maintaining the established style. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to keep the discussion to the article talk page, so the same discussion isn't duplicated in two places. -- Alex^TW 04:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking for some help!

Hi AussieLegend! I'm currently trying to create an improved episode list for List of Holby City episodes in hope of promoting it to a featured list. I'm working on it at User:Soaper1234/episodes and User:Soaper1234/episodes*. I'm here to ask for some help on whether it actually needs a second page for improved performance. When I placed all 20 series on one page, it said series 12 onwards could not be viewed due to too many templates. However, I noticed on other episode lists, such as List of Casualty episodes and List of The Simpsons episodes, that this tends to happen after 20 seasons, rather than 11 seasons. Anyway, I preceeded to move series 1-11 onto the * list, leaving series 12- on the first list. This now does not let series 19 and 20 along with the notelists, reflists and templates appear on the page. So, basically, I am here to ask for some help or advice on how I should go about creating this episode list and whether I need a second page. I came to you directly as I know you have helped improve the performance on various episodes list. I really hope that made sense and you will be able to help me out. Thank you, Soaper1234 - talk 20:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2017!

Merry Christmas

This user wishes you a very Merry Christmas.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, AussieLegend. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 2,478 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2018!

Happy New Year!

AussieLegend,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Netoholic reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of articles

Hi,

I’m wondering why you keep deleting my edits and articles that I’m creating. It’s honestly really giving me the shits. The articles are credible and known have been fake, please stop getting rid of them.

Thanks Dylben01 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not deleting your articles. They are being deleted by administrators after community discussions have determined that the articles don't have a place on Wikipedia. You have received notification of the deletion discussions each time an article has been nominated. If you wish to find out why the articles that you created have been nominated, I suggest that you check the deletion discussions. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hey legend? I've noticed that you are reverting all of my resent edits even some which shouldn't be reverted Thagana peters (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Thagana peters (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't reverted all of your recent edits. I have reverted edits where appropriate and the reason for reversion is explained in the edit summary. I've also separately fixed articles that inclued errors. Since my last post on your talk page you have used Wikipedia articles as references, which is not permitted. This was one such edit that was reverted. In addition to being inappropriate, it's also redundant as you're using the same article that you've linked to as the reference for the article that you linked to. Here you added an article that doesn't exist to a "See also" section. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I also have a good examples to clarify my compain, and that's why I stated above that some edits deserve to be reverted but some you just have no reason unless "personal". A good example is that of the page Technical university of Kenya (TU-K) where a just edited then name of the former President from Mwai Kibaki to Hon.Mwai kibaki. You reversed!! Is that's wrong according to wikipedia? Just asking, I like learning I'll be pleasured to be a bid wikipedia editor one day like you are.

Thagana peters (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edits at Technical University of Kenya didn't just edit the name, they also mucked up the bolding, causing the entire lead to be bolded. "(CBD)" wasn't needed as CBD isn't used in the document. As for the name, "Hon." isn't part of his name and, per MOS:HONORIFIC, shouldn't be used. There is also supposed to be a space between "Hon." and the name, but that wasn't relevant to the reversion. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

But I wonder why am not the only one complaining, something is wrong somewhere with you.

Thagana peters (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Thagana peters (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Inexperienced editors who do not understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and especially those who don't seem to want to understand, often complain. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

But I also appreciate for some very good edits you make

Thagana peters (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Thagana peters (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:Reverting revert

Please see WT:Reverting; your edit runs counter to the current consensus there. Feel free to jump in, too. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I shouldn't do these things...

Aussie, would you look at my edit to Iron Chef Showdown, where I tried to add a reference. I've done something wrong, and can't figure out what. Your help would be appreciated!! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Using {{reflist}} on its own bypassed the {{reflist}} in the references section. You need to uniquely group the notes to avoid this. In the "Iron Chef statistics" section you'll see that "<ref group=lower-alpha>" was used. In the "Episodes" section I just changed "<ref>" to "<ref group=n>" and "{{reflist}}" to "{{reflist|group=n}}".[10] --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That's how I originally did it, but with another name. I didn't think to change it to something shorter. This is what comes from the learning-by-doing approach to all this mark-up. Thanks, pal. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Changing an RM target

When proposing a new target for a move request as at Talk:Vikings (TV documentary series), is it really best practice to close the first request and open a new one rather than repurposing it? I just couldn’t find anything at WP:RM about handling such situations, so any advice you have would be great. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You should either allow the existing RM to run its course or formally request that it be closed. Usually, it's just best to wait the whole 7 days. Just state at the RM that you withdraw the nomination and wait for it to be closed. Then start a new RM. Either way, if you change what you're proposing you should start a new RM, especially after numerous people have replied. You should never change the proposal after there have been replies. This includes changing the target as you did in this edit --AussieLegend (✉) 06:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Talang

I have created an article about Talang 2018. Take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It's rather brief and not really supported by the MOS. Generally we create season articles to support an episode list for that season. The content at both Talang 2017 and Talang 2018 should really be part of List of Talang episodes until episode tables and other content can be created for the individual season articles. For an example of how that works, see Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 17) and List of Hell's Kitchen episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Previous message

Hi AussieLegend. I left a message in December on your talk page (now located here). I was wondering whether it would be anything you could help with? No worries if not or you are busy. Thanks, Soaper1234 - talk 07:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see if I can find out what the problem actually is. I did start last time but got dragged away. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Soaper1234 - talk 10:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Port Stephens Council

Hello,

I think referring to Heatherbrae as a "satellite suburb" of Raymond Terrace implies that it is a suburb of Raymond Terrace, as opposed to Port Stephens itself. I propose changing the wording back to referring to Heatherbrae as adjacent to Raymond Terrace. Regards, trainsandtech (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The wording that you used implied that Raymond Terrace is a suburb, when it's not. It's a town. Heatherbrae is treated as a suburb of Raymond Terrace, even though it isn't. The use of satellite suburb is in line with the concept explained at satellite town although, in the case of Heatherbrae it is independent of Raymond Terrace, but relies heavily upon it for almost all services. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps at the end of the sentence, it should read "which is technically independent of Raymond Terrace" ? If not, I'm fine with the sentence remain unchanged. Regards, trainsandtech (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

StarStruck

Since you seem to know the show, you might want to check Seasons 1-4 of StarStruck also. The same IP address made multiple changes on those pages too. Ahwiv (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not actually familiar with the show but this IP hopping editor has been making so many unconstructive edits that it's just best to revert all of them to the last stable version of the articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AussieLegend reported by User:Thagana_peters (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Abusive language

With all due respect, I don't expect someone like you to use abusive language such as "nonsense" in edit summaries. If that's what you call master editing/editor then I don't know how you define a master. I always thought of you as a descent mind but this is becoming too MUCH Thagana peters (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Thagana peters (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsolicited 3O - I think you should consider yourself lucky AussieLegend didn't remove the entire contribution and tag you with a NPOV template, rather then complaining about the poor quality of the edit... Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I marked it as nonsense specifically because it was nonsense. "Althoug it's history traces it as a pedantic institute" makes no sense at all. That's before the spelling errors and incorrect use of apostrophes is taken into account. You have to admit, I've been pretty tolerant with your edits. You make many, many mistakes but I just fix them for you. However, this was one case that deserved a comment. Fortunately, DanielRigal has been through that article today and made some significant improvements.[11] --AussieLegend (✉) 03:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

health oz

om ... i was about to start doing that but there are so many old style links with wayback additions ... and it takes so long. ;( Dave Rave (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

also, should we be a sovereign state rather than a sovereign country, wp using a disam on the SC to go to the SS, realising that sovereign being self rule rather than Queen Bess Dave Rave (talk)

Talang

I have created an article about Talang 2018. Take a look.BabbaQ (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 10:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucracy

In re this: I realize that WP:Nobody reads the directions, but I thought you might like to know (for general/background information) that the very first item at WP:RFCEND is that the person who starts the RFC can end it. I have no opinion on whether it was wise to use that approach in this particular discussion, but it is "legal", and it is sometimes the best possible outcome. Not requiring another editor to "close" every single RFC can save the community quite a lot of time and effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, what it says is "The question may be withdrawn by the poster". Closing the RfC as he did isn't withdrawing the question. When you withdraw an RfC the close should read "withdrawn by nominator", not declare a consensus, because when you withdraw a question the result is the same as if the question was never asked. If, on the other hand, you use the opinions of the editors who have responded as a consensus, then the question was never actually withdrawn. Instead the RfC was just closed early. Allowing the nominator to close an RfC in that manner would allow an editor to prematurely close an RfC before opinions started to turn against the nominator. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on your block. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:STICK. Don’t gloat. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The reverting is what really irked me about it, the complete denial of any attempt to find a compromise [12] [13]. In the future (if there’s a next time), if you feel the need to “fix” my or someone else’s edit, please actually try to FIXTHEPROBLEM rather than simply negating it; if you think it should be done another way, implement it. I would admittedly consider a WP:BOLD talkpage edit highly improper, but no more so than a straight revert, and infinitely less confrontational and more productive. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) Let me give you a nickel's worth of free advice: Everyone is trying to help you understand, but your ego seems to get in the way. When you get reverted, just ask why. Read the edit summary. Finally, don't presume to hand out advice to long-time editors. If you continue to rankle people, they'll have all the more reason to leave you blocked rather than negotiate. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As a long-time editor myself, I don’t disagree. But it wasn’t advice, just a sincere request to help keep the ego out of the way, regardless of whether the actual edit in question was a good idea. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

the complete denial of any attempt to find a compromise - I've been telling you since the RM not to alter text and you've completely ignored that. You've been reverted a number of times, with summaries explaining the issue and you've completely ignored those too, so don't try to put the blame on others. The fault here is yours.

if you feel the need to “fix” my or someone else’s edit, please actually try to FIXTHEPROBLEM rather than simply negating it - The problem was the inappropriate addition of text. The only way to fix that problem, based on your demonstrated unwillingness to take advice, was to revert the change. It would be inappropriate of me to otherwise change the text. You still don't seem to get that.

As a long-time editor myself - If one believes that claim then you should have known better than to do what you did in the first place. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Rugrats air dates: Amazon Instant Video

Is Amazon Instant Video a reliable source? Could I use the airdates from that? Dpm12 (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, I found this link, which kept track of new episodes airing, and guess what? Some of the segments aired separately, including Starstruck and Where's Taffy?: http://www.animeexpressway.com/rugrats/rrep2002.htm

I used it as ref on the page, but I didn't list the dates for individual segments yet, so as to not anger you. But yea, here it is: http://www.animeexpressway.com/rugrats/rrep2002.htm Dpm12 (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Please keep this discussion on the article's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Top Gear Update

Hello, you haven't responded to any of my queries (on various other pages) as to why there is no Series 25 page for Top Gear, and why the list of episodes page has not been updated despite the series in question currently airing. It seems rather important for this to be rectified - as there is no record of it for normal people looking on Wikipedia. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @TheMysteriousEditor: You need an episode table to add a series overview table row, but you don't need an article to start an episode table. I've gone ahead and done this for you, but you'll need to add the episode details, as I don't watch the show. -- Alex^TW 13:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, Draft:Top Gear (series 25) already exists. -- Alex^TW 13:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow you're everywhere haha. And I'm posting it here, since AussieLegend seems to be the most prolific editor of those pages and knows exactly what he's doing. I'll end up doing something wrong and getting reverted. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I edit a lot of shows, and have a lot of talk pages on my watchlist. If you can't add a row because there's no episode table, then the apparent fix would be to create an episode table. -- Alex^TW 14:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I would be able to do that if the Series 25 page wasn't a draft page. It seems to have changed over the page few months. You used to be able to just remove something from the source and the page would no longer be just a draft. So I do not know what to do. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:MOVE -- Alex^TW 22:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh that was easy...thanks. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sydney culture/entertainment - literature

I think the Sydney Culture-entertainment section warrants a mention of Sydney's literary scene. I understand your views that it's too specific, and could be tightened and trimmed, would you accept its inclusion if it was revised and shortened? I cannot see why any reference in such a long article about the city should exclude its literature, whether it be novels set in Sydney, or writers who have made prolific careers there. Ashton 29 (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

A brief revision would be OK but the article now has 75kB of readable prose which really requires minimal additions, splits off to other articles or some pruning. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Stargate Origins

You are wrong! There are 3 parameters: | preceded_by | followed_by | related

as about franchise - go to Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, CSI .... – Vilnisr ^{T | C} 19:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but no I'm not wrong. |preceded_by= and |followed_by= have always been for chronological release order, not the chronological order within the franchise. The order is Stargate (film), Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, Stargate Universe and Stargate Origins, even though Origins is set before all of the TV series and after the beginning of the film. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

i wrote it before i reed a note you made and from this point i agree, but could you explain complete removal? – Vilnisr ^{T | C} 19:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It was completely wrong so it was completely removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to correct than remove content, it's just copy past to correct parameter? You are against vandalism but your actions wasn't much better. – Vilnisr ^{T | C} 20:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I had only recently made some significant fixes in the article, including the removal of some fairly blatant copyright violations,[14] I can't do everything. Only 92 minutes before your changes I made some fairly significant fixes to the infobox, directing editors to the infobox instructions in my edit summary,[15] but you still went ahead and restored content that had quite appropriately been deleted without bothering at all to explain why you were restoring it.[16] That's pretty irresponsible and I therefore really don't appreciate you claiming my actions were not much better than vandalism. Maybe you should check the edit history and check the infobox instructions next time before restoring incorrect information. On a related note, please use edit summaries in future so your edits don't give the impression of petulant disruptive editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

RfA potential nomination

Hi there AussieLegend. I'm interested at some stage in the future in RfA. Prior to doing so, I'd value your input into the areas where I need more development to ensure that my application succeeds. Do you have any comments or feedback? Many thanks for your time. Rangasyd (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The King of Queens

what are the inappropriate sources that i used? Jarmusic2 (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

None of the sources that you used in this edit are reliable sources as they are user-contributed. See WP:TVFAQ for links to related discussions ang guidelines. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Survival of the Fittest 2018

Hi Have just seen you comment to my ratings table. There is prove for this rating. BARB as i stated. You can't actually get a link for this only there website home page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slindsell15 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Slindsell15: Content such as this always requires an inline citation. Simply stating it in an edit summary is insufficient. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for paragraph: literature in Sydney

Well I tweaked it, made it more taut and concise without too much background info...this is what I came up with. 204 words max, not including citations. What do you think and are there any revisions you'd like to make? I'd say it's a good attempt at summarising Sydney's literature given the scope and length of the city's written history.

• Many writers have originated in and set their work in Sydney. The city was the headquarters for Australia's first published newspaper, the Sydney Gazette. A Narrative of the Expedition to Botany Bay (1789) and A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson in New South Wales (1793) have remained the best-known of the accounts of life in early Sydney. Since the infancy of the establishment, many of the novels concerned themselves with life in the city's slums and working-class communities, notably William Lane's The Working Man's Paradise (1892), Christina Stead's Seven Poor Men of Sydney (1934) and Ruth Park's The Harp in the South (1948). The first Australian-born female novelist, Louisa Atkinson, set various of her novels in Sydney. Contemporary writers, such as Elizabeth Harrower, were born in the city and thus set most of the work there–Harrower's debut book Down in the City (1958) was set in a King's Cross apartment. Well known contemporary novels set in the city include Melina Marchetta's Looking for Alibrandi (1992), Peter Carey's 30 Days in Sydney: A Wildly Distorted Account (1999), J.M. Coetzee's Diary of a Bad Year (2007) and Kate Grenville's The Secret River (2010).

Ashton 29 (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hello. Help increase the quality of the article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.171.227.130.216 (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

NCIS LA

Why'd you roll back my edit, AussieLegend? Sukkylloyd (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit summary, the edit broke the infobox. It also added an actor who has only ever been credited in a recurring role to the "starring" section of the infobox, which was inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of my edits

I’m starting to become extremely annoyed and confused as to why you keep deleting posts of mine that are truthful. Eg Beaconsfielf Football Club Dylben01 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

As I have explained to you previously, I have not been deleting "your" articles. I did propose Beaconsfield Football Club for deletion as it was an unreferenced article that failed to credibly assert notability of the subject. Another editor discovered that the article was mostly a copyright violation from http://www.beaconsfieldjfc.com.au/about-the-club/club-history and redirected the article. Copyright violations are not permitted and so that editor's actions were entirely appropriate. Note that I am not the only editor who has taken issue with your edits. Beaconsfield Eagles Football Club, another unreferenced article that failed to credibly assert notability of the subject that you created has been redirected by another editor and several images that you improperly uploaded to commons, claiming copyright as your own, have been nominated for deletion. If you wish to continue editing Wikipedia you really need to start complying with our policies and guidelines and stop blaming me for your mistakes. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Skeem saam

Hy Aussie, how about we add broadcasting history to separate its creation nd broadcasting history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Samm-W (talk • contribs) 19:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

IP 2601:81:C401:5307::/64

Range blocked x 6 months and I protected the page they were hitting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

First Ladies - Article for Deletion

Hey AussieLegend,

I was hoping you might chime in on this discussion being had in regards to deleting a page for the upcoming Netflix film First Ladies. I created a draft earlier today due to the fact that there is no word that the film has actually begun filming. Noticed later in the day that someone had went ahead and created a article in the mainspace. Hope to get your input in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Ladies (film). Thanks, BoogerD (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

yooohooo You've got mail

Hello, AussieLegend. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Vivipinke (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sydney climate

What’s wrong with my Sydney climate edit? How is it not constructive? Eve pendlebury (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is on the article's talk page, as you were asked to do. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)