User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Talk:Hannah Montana

My understanding is that information added to talk pages may be reverted when it is unconstructive, or considered vandalism. The editor who added that material has a history of unconstructive edits and warnings. As I explained, that particular addition is contradicted by a cited statement just above it. Do you have a different understanding of talk page protocol? Piano non troppo (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a different understanding of talk page protocol but perhaps a different understanding of what should be included in an edit summary. The reason stated in your edit summary isn't reason enough for deletion of the content. What he wrote may be uncited but I don't see that it's deliberately unconstructive. The editor in question is only a new editor with a total of 17 posts, the one that you deleted being his first. As for having a history of unconstructive edits, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. This is just the case of a new editor who doesn't understand the purpose of talk pages and the limited number of warnings that he has received (3 including yours) is not a lot at all and they're not very serious. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you research a little more carefully. Sweetheart2009's talk comments were deleted here [1], here [2], and here [3]. The edit of theirs you chose to restore was:

"It has not completely been confirmed to be a 4th season by miley states I would like to do a 4th season.Please delete the parody section.it is desgusting to put that garbage on the Hannah montana page.and people should not make fun of wholesome shows."

The comment just above it, with citation, reads ' "We'll be shooting the fourth season of 'Hannah Montana' in 2010", says Rich Ross, President of Disney Channels Worldwide.” by Chicago Sun-Times reporter Marco R. Della Cava. ' Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I did research before I replied to you. Yes, three of his 17 posts were deleted, all by the same editor. They were deleted because they were forum posts but, as I indicated above, this is simply a case of a new editor who doesn't understand that talk pages are not forums for general discussions. Claiming that "the editor who added that material has a history of unconstructive edits and warnings" is really overstating the matter. The editor isn't deliberately being unconstructive, he is just new, as we all once were. I think you need to assume good faith a bit more.

I should also point out that I shouldn't have to do research in order to determine whether or not your deletions are justified. Your edit summaries should make it clear as to why you are deleting content. The reason that you stated was not sufficient on its own. Had you mentioned that "the editor has a history of unconstructive edits", that might have given me pause. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Your description of the reversion of my edit read: "Don't delete talk page content." That's not a reason, so I asked you to explain yourself. Yes, you should have to research and be accountable for your edits.

2) FYI, many, perhaps most, editor blocks happen with editors who have less than 17 edits. Those on anti-vandalism patrol can't wait until someone has corrupted dozens of article before taking action. In that same vein, it doesn't make a difference whether someone's unconstructive edit is their first, or their 17th -- the same rules apply.

3) I reverted someone's edits that had already been determined to be unconstructive by another editor. As far as consensus, it would appear that you are wrong.

Piano non troppo (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

1) There should have been no need for me to explain myself further in my edit summary. Your reversion, based on the edit summary you provided, was not justified. You're an experienced editor and, with over 34,500 edits under your belt, you should know the rules regarding the deletion of talk page content. Clearly, from your opening statements here you do know the rules, demonstrating quite clearly that what I wrote was enough. Had you been somewhat less experienced I would have left a message on your talk page but, since you're a regular, WP:DTTR applies.

2) The blocks don't occur when an editor only has 3 edits reverted and his only real sin has been to use the talk page as a discussion forum. It wouldn't happen to a 17 post editor who has never edited an actual article. The post that you seem concerned with was not vandalism so the second part of your argument doesn't apply. This particular editor has never edited an article, he's just posted on talk pages.

3) That argument might have some merit if it weren't for the fact that you chose to delete a post (his very first post) that nobody else had had a problem with in the 17 days since it was posted. The deletion of a few of an editor's posts doesn't justify deletion of any other posts made by that editor. You've had 216 posts deleted. Should we delete your other posts based on this? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You *could* have looked at her edit itself, and seen that it wasn't constructive. You *could* have looked at the date on my polite warning to Sweetheart2009, and noticed that the message was several days before I removed her comment on the Talk:Hannah_Montana. I.e., I wasn't "biting the newcomer". I don't see what your point is, except to somehow qualify your mistaken edit. Since you are wrong, and bringing up endless tangents, I'll just conclude the discussion now. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I did look at the edit and there was no justification in deleting it, which is why I restored it. It may have been misguided but that's all. It wasn't unconstructive enough to warrant deletion. When I said you were biting the newcomer I was referring to the fact that you deleted a 17 day old post from a newcomer that didn't warrant deletion, and your comments here have been against the spirit of WP:BITE even if you're not directly biting. As for tangents, I think you should review your own posts. There are plenty of tangents there. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Anzac Day

I've reported the IP 84.148.xx.xx with the on going edit warring by them[4]. I've hit my 3rd revert but they have it their 5th revert within a few hours! Bidgee (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Aussie for keeping the FETCH! page under controll while i'm gone. See you in a few more months. The Cool Kat (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

fetch

from this edit status = Returning series filming new season (season 5) this video is from the producer of the show. she states that filming will began this summer (june) please respond Ffaadstrbdetete (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There's not much more I can say other than what I've already said on your talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

OH OK, Well, I just thought (since it was only for ONE episode) that it wouldn't be a problem, because that one source is just for the Name and Premiere date, so only 2 lines are needed so it's not that bad, but next time I'll try and do it the proper way. - Alec2011 (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

HANNAH MONTANA EP.

I added the /Hannah Montana back because, they is no reason to have details on the main article, which would defeat the purpose for separate articles. If you want to make a change like this, then please discuss it. When I changed it to this style, i did it to make the articles correspond. you are the only person who has had a problem, so please use the discussion page. Thanks!--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for splitting the episode list into separate season articles was to make the individual seasons more manageable. Most episode lists use either the standard {{Episode list}} template or a custom table and most contain episode summary information in the main article. Readers generally look for primary episode information, ie episode number, title, airdate and summary, not secondary information such as writers, directors and production codes. (The last could actually be classified as tertiary information, it's not included at all in some lists) Forcing primary information to be only in the individual season articles forces the readers to the individual articles making the main list pretty much useless.

I notice that when you decided that episode summary information did not need to be in the main article,[5][6][7] you did so with no consultation. It's therefore hypocritical to insist that I, who is only changing back to the standard template so that people can see what they're looking for in one place, should discuss any changes that I want made before making them. It's more than hypocritical when you look at the edit history for the pages. You've never actually edited List of Hannah Montana episodes, which is where the changes you're insisting on appear, and it has been over 6 months since you edited List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 1)[8] or List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 3)[9] and five months since you edited List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 2)[10]. To come along now, reverting 60 edits by other users and insisting we use your template smacks of WP:OWN.

As for me being "the only person who has had a problem", that's simply not true. Your changes were immediately opposed by one experienced editor.[11][12] You even received warnings on your talk page.[13] Another editor had problems with lack of episode summaries,[14] and I have no doubt that there were others who visited List of Hannah Montana episodes and wondered why there were no summaries but didn't ask.

There's also the not so small matter of a fault in the {{Episode list/Hannah Montana}} template that causes it to transpose the "WrittenBy" and "DirectedBy" fields so that they display out of order, as in the following example:

{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" style="width:100%; margin:auto; background:#FFFFFF;"
|-
!! style="background-color: #ffd43f; color:#000; text-align: center;"|Series #
!! style="background-color: #ffd43f; color:#000; text-align: center;"|Season #
!! style="background-color: #ffd43f; color:#000; text-align: center;"|Original title
!! style="background-color: #ffd43f; color:#000; text-align: center;"|Directed by
!! style="background-color: #ffd43f; color:#000; text-align: center;"|Written by
!! style="background-color: #ffd43f; color:#000; text-align: center;"|Original airdate
!! style="background-color: #ffd43f; color:#000; text-align: center;"|Prod. code
|{{Episode list
 |EpisodeNumber  = 1
 |EpisodeNumber2 = 1x01
 |Title          = title
 |RTitle         = <ref>www.tv.com</ref>
 |DirectedBy     = Director
 |WrittenBy      = Writer
 |OriginalAirDate= January 1, 1980
 |ProdCode       = 101
 |ShortSummary   = This episode uses {{tl|Episode list}}
 |LineColor      = ffd43f
}}
{{Episode list/Hannah Montana
 |EpisodeNumber  = 1
 |EpisodeNumber2 = 1x01
 |Title          = title
 |RTitle         = <ref>www.tv.com</ref>
 |DirectedBy     = Director
 |WrittenBy      = Writer
 |OriginalAirDate= January 1, 1980
 |ProdCode       = 101
 |ShortSummary   = This episode uses {{tl|Episode list/Hannah Montana}}
 |LineColor      = ffd43f
}}
|}

I noticed it once before but didn't realise the significance at the time because somebody had worked around the fault, rather than fixing the fault itself. It only became obvious recently, when somebody else noticed it and worked around it.[15][16] While the fault can be worked around, it shouldn't. The template should work exactly as the instructions say. It doesn't and this needs to fixed. Until then, and until you can explain why this non-standard template should be used in lieu of the standard template, it shouldn't be used. To eliminate the errors that this template causes, I've reverted again to the standard template. Please don't introduce the errors again and you should not change to the non-standard template until such time as the discussion on this at Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes concludes with a consensus. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

fetch with ruff ruffman episodes

can you tell me how to make point charts for the show. i will be working on the charts. thanks please respond Ffaadstrbdetete (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Color?

What do you have against the color pink as it was before? The yellow is too bright and servers no purpose. Besides the standard color is that light blue anyway. - Alec2011 (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against pink per se. It's used for season 3, which is the problem. With all of the seasons on one page, each of the seasons should be a significantly different colour to allow easy navigation through the lists. The pink that you chose for season 1 was too close to the colour used for season 3, which is probably why this edit changed it. If you don't like the yellow, pick something else, just don't pick pink for more than one season. I chose to stay with pink for season 3 because that's the current season and the change to another colour would be more subtle at season 3 than season 1.

Excessive use of colour is distracting. Alternating lines of different colours where the difference between one colour and the next is significant is more of a hindrance than a help. Your colour choices for season 1 were actually good because the colour changes are subtle, but you can't do that for every season. The difference between the line colours in seasons 2 and 3 are too much. You need to alternate with different shades of the same colour but it gets too complicated and too hard to manage on an ongoing basis. It's usually a better idea just to colour the column heading and separator line as is done in the season articles. The following are some multi-season episode lists that I believe demonstrate an effective use of colour.

• 3rd Rock from the Sun
• Battlestar Galactica (2004 series)
• Bones
• Buck Rogers in the 25th Century
• Desperate Housewives
• FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman
• Gossip Girl
• Heroes

• House
• I Dream of Jeannie
• Lost
• NCIS
• Sabrina, the Teenage Witch
• Samantha Who?
• Scrubs
• Space: 1999

• Spin City
• Stargate Atlantis
• Stargate SG-1
• Supernatural
• The Big Bang Theory
• The Suite Life of Zack & Cody
• Will & Grace
• Xena: Warrior Princess

It's important to standardise when you're using colours. The colour you pick for each season should be able to be used for that season in each relevant article. I've done this successfully with NCIS. You'll see that at the episode list, and the individual season articles,[17][18][19][20][21][22] each season has it's own unique colour and use of that colour is the same across all seasons. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Purple is being used for Season 3 and Light Pink was being used for Season 1 there is a complete difference in the color choices.... I also used a lighter shade every other episodes so it's easier to tell each episode from onther instead of having the episdoes background one color. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The colour for season 1 in the episode overview table is the same colour that you used for the column heading for season 1 on the episode list page and the season article. The colour for season 2 in the episode overview table is the same colour that you used for the column heading for season 2 on the episode list page and the season article. The colour for season 3 in the episode overview table is not the same colour that you used for the column heading for season 3 on the episode list page. You used that colour for the odd numbered episodes in season 3. It's a very similar colur to the season 1 column heading colour which makes it confusing. On some monitors they're very similar. Don't assume that just because they look different for you, they'll look different for everyone. I have six monitors in use here and there were varying differences. Even in one lab with 16 computers using 3 different types of monitor there wasn't a great deal of difference between the two colours. As for the difference in shading, I suggest you look again. Every second episde is white, not a different shade. The contrast between the lines is very high. It's especially distracting in season 3 and makes the lines difficult to read. It's just not needed. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

fetch season 5

you deleated season in the owerview and episode list. i know you need a source but there is not realy one out there right now. in a youtube the producer Marcy Gunther confirmed that they will be start filming in June time code 2:59. also there is fetch season 5 auditions that happened in January 2009. . so do you think i can add it back on the site. thanks please respond Ffaadstrbdetete (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If it can't be verified with a citation from a reliable source, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. This is a core policy. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. Youtube is not considered to be a reliable source. References must support the claim made in the article. The second citation that you provided[23] doesn't support the claim that the season is currently filming. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian Articles

Well done on all your work on articles relating to Australia. Keep it up :D Destroyer000 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Penguins of Madagascar" episode length and quality

Dear AussieLegend:

Please go to the discussion page for the episode list article of “The Penguins of Madagascar” to discuss the issue of episode summary length and quality.

Thank you, -An Anonymous Fan of “The Penguins of Madagascar” 76.192.6.77 (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

US crap

Why is it that only US matters?

I thought Wikipedia believed in NET NUETRALITY......

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If we mention that programs have aired in one country then, in order to maintain net neutrality, we should also mention when the program has aired in every country, which has the potential to make articles huge and filled with information that really doesn't enhance the article. It's more neutral, and more practical to limit information to one set of data. In this case, the original run of the program is in the US, so we limit the listings to the US date. The other important issue regarding your post is that it was uncited. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

IF I remember correctly the episode was aired elsewhere too, so maybe you can just say that the episode has been aired in other countries. As for the ref, the TV guide at DineyIN's website dd say the episode name, but that page isn't accessible anymore... However I know what happens in the episode. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes

Thanks for moving that talk page text and, especially, for changing my part of the text so I didn't seem directionally challenged. Celestra (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Youtube?

Youtube isn't counted as a reliable source correct? - Alec2011 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please help us so that we don't violate the three-revert rule?

User_talk:68.73.93.130 and I are in an editing war over WCIU-TV. Could you please resolve this so that we don't violate the three-revert rule? Neither one of us owns this page, anyway. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

fetch air date

the edit you undid http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FETCH!_with_Ruff_Ruffman&diff=299202859&oldid=299202690. I emailed the production company and the said september 14. so i realy don't have a source. so could i put the email they sent on my talk page as the referecne. thanks please respond Suiteman (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In short, using something posted on your talk page as a reference is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A young sockpuppet

All of the above seem to be the same, young editor. User:Fjfhgfhdstty was originally blocked in January for disruptive editing, which seems to have resulted in the creation of User:Fgdsggureugb, User:Bhfkdjktrrerkgf, User:Ffaadstrbdetete and finally User:Suiteman as each editor was blocked after being identified. As I indicated at User talk:Ffaadstrbdetete[24], this editor seems to have learned his lesson after the initial block and his contributions have generally been constructive, youthful inexperience aside. I don't think he understands the consequences of creating user acount after user account after user account, but this just requires some education. He still makes mistakes, as do we all, but he does both seek and heed advice. There are far worse editors freely roaming Wikipedia.

User:Ffaadstrbdetete was the first of the socks that I encountered but I didn't realise that he was a sock until he was blocked as there was certainly nothing in his editing style to indicate any malicious intent and I really think he should be given a second chance. He has never really been given an explanation (that he'd understand) as to why he was blocked in the first place and when he made his last request to be unblocked,[25] the response was quite blunt and quite incorrect.[26] User:Fjfhgfhdstty's initial edits at FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman were reasonably constructive,[27][28] but were reverted without any explanation[29][30] and it appears that he just got frustrated in the end with being reverted without being told why. He was then blocked as a vandalism only account, which wasn't actually the case as his first edits weren't vandalism. As far as I can see, only the edits for which he was blocked were actually disruptive. All other edits, both before and since, seem to constructive or made in good faith so, to bluntly decline him using the argument that he's a disruptive sockpuppet is really inappropriate. Sockpuppet, yes. Disruptive, No! Scratch that. I really don't see him as a sock because he's not being "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive". All he's doing is avoiding the original block so he can constructively edit. His subsequent accounts fit the "alternative account" mould more closely. Of course, as I indicated to the administrator who last declined his unblock request,[31] there may be something I'm missing. That admin hasn't seen fit to reply, which I think is quite ignorant, so I don't know if I have missed anything. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there; I have copied your comment to your talkpage because it is easier than trying to type the various account names that this user has created.

I understand, from your supportive edits, that you have taken an interest in this user, which cannot be a bad thing. The problem is that he appears unable to appreciate the policies which govern wikipedia, particularly as regards sockpuppetry and block evasion: both of which he has done, been warned about, and done again. Notwithstanding you comment, he has indeed been "fraudulent, disruptive or otherwise deceptive" by creating and using alternative accounts while blocked. Which shows a clear disregard for the rules by which wikipedia operates. OK, he is young and inexperienced; so I put it to you for an opinion. If we give him a second chance, and he blows it, he is going to get blocked until hell freezes. Is it a good idea to do this now, or should we let him get a year or so older? If you say give him a chance I will consult with Blueboy and, unless he really objects, do so. But think carefully. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit to some confusion here as I can't find anywhere on the various talk pages where he was actually warned, other than by templates, the meaning of which is usually not immediately clear to inexperienced users. In this unblock request you can see that he was trying to justify his reasons for adding the content that he thought got him blocked, when he was actually blocked for block evasion. In this request, it's clear that he doesn't know why he was blocked. He doesn't seem to understand the policies so I'm going to discuss it with him before I give you my opinion, so that I can be sure he understands. If he doesn't, then waiting a year might be the best idea. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

fetch

You deleated the fetch air date but here's the only source I have it not a link. I emailed the producers and this is what they said Thank you for your interest in WGBH. We always appreciate hearing from our viewers, listeners, and Web site visitors. Our FETCH! season 4 premier will air as a sneak peek on September 11, 2009. The series will start officially on September 14, 2009. We hope you continue to enjoy the terrific children's programs produced by WGBH like Arthur, Postcards from Buster, Between the Lions, Peep and the Big Wide World, Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman, Design Squad, and Curious George. Find out about all these great shows online at pbskids.org! Please consider supporting the excellent children's programming produced by WGBH by calling us at 617-300-3300 (M-F, 9-5) - or at 800-492-1111 at other times - or pledging online at http://www.wgbh.org/pledge. Visit wgbh.org for information about WGBH programs and services and to sign up for our free weekly e-newsletter, @gbh, which includes reminders of upcoming programs on WGBH 2, 44, 89.7, information on your favorite PBS sites, answers to your questions, and the latest WGBH news. Sincerely, WGBH Member Development and Services

also if you go to http://www.ket.org/tvschedules/series.php?id=FCTH&layout=popup Dog of the Rings #313 [TV-Y] will reair on KET1 Monday, August 31 at 5:00 pm EDT. also since this is episode 13 it will go till thursday. then season 3 will be done on stempber 10th. so that is how season 4 will air on the 14th. can you tell me how to put a source on that or something close to not have the date dealted anymore. thanks please respondSuiteman (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

fetch

stop deleateding the end date for fetch. it is going to end in october. look at the other end dates june to may for season 1 and 2 and 3 sep to oct. Suiteman (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You are well aware of the requirements for citations from reliable sources in support of the claims that you've made. This edit constitutes original research, which is unnaceptable. As I have indicated on your talk page,[32], you require a citation from a reliable source specifically stating that the end date is October 2006. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

AussieLegend if he's giving you some much trouble I think somebody should give Suiteman an Indefblock. Wheeloffortune26 (talk -- 11:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I discovered recently that he's a sockpuppet so I've already reported him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fjfhgfhdstty and since he's also breached WP:3RR I've reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring as well. He'll be gone soon. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

AussieLegend, thanks for keep me up to date. Unfortunately, the time difference was not on my side (I received the message at roughly 2am local time), but it is now 6am local time and I've noticed your sockpuppet report has resulted in an indef block. Thanks for going through all the trouble and stress to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia! Let me know if the sock pops up again; I'll be glad to help out. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He's Back this time he's Extremeguy. Wheeloffortune26 (talk -- 02:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, I've already discussed it with the admin who blocked Suiteman. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AL, you have my genuine sympathy. While he was playing around with a variety of unpronouncable sock-names you tried quite hard to support him. Just shows you can't win 'em all. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I Found Information about Season 4 of FETCH! [33] make sure you scroll down to the last message. Wheeloffortune26 (talk -- 02:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the same information that Suiteman was trying to put into the article. Unfortunately, forum posts are not considered to be reliable sources so th information can't be used.

Oh Ok I thought that would've work but I guess not. Wheeloffortune26 (talk -- 03:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Prod. Codes

When the episode was being announced, it said a hone-hour special (meaning a 2 part episode). However, when it ired, it was a 50 min. episode than the 23 mins. it usually is. However, there are a total of 30 episodes in season 3 and this hour speical would take up two episode spots (however it's only one episode). They produced the episodes together (in one day) so it's two episodes. - Alec2011 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For the watchlist

Honeysuckle, Newcastle seems slightly promotional in tone, although not being a local I'm not sure. I'd appreciate if you could look over at some stage. Not urgent :) Orderinchaos 18:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's essentially correct although the whole thing looks to have been cut and pasted. (see citation #2 for an example). It's now on my watchlist and I'll have a closer look when I have a chance. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, you wouldn't be free any time between 9-11 August? I'm going to be in Newcastle for a few days (mostly friend visiting and photo taking as I lost an HDD a few months ago) If not, that's cool - I do intend to be back sometime in the future :) Orderinchaos 22:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm always free. It's one of the advantages of being semi-retired. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Noticed your additions to Hunter articles just now. I intend to rewrite some history very soon; it needs it. Also will be doing stub on another place, just to get something started. Was going to do Wollombi but someone beat me to it. Have just come back from Hunter and have lots of shots. Anything you need?

Sardaka (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Hunter articles are lacking decent images so anything you can add would probably be beneficial. Regarding Morpeth, the initial article contained a large amount of information but as it was a copyright violation it had to be removed, resulting in the current lack of content. You might be able to use the information in your rewrite. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you an admin by any chance? There have been probs lately with an anti-photo anonymous editor who's threatening to do a hatchet job on Sydney suburb articles. Getting serious.

Sardaka (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not but if you are having issues that can't be resolved, you can always raise the matter at WP:AN. What articles are they? I can always have a look as an independent third party. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I to have been having problems with over use of photos in the Potts point article and after finding these comments by the author of these images and checking through some of these other Sydney suburban articles have found these articles to be cluttered with a whole heap of unnecessary images of houses and other artifacts. Removal of some of these images would be an improvement and a big relief, not a matter for the administrators notice board, not vandalism just good editing and reformatting. Improvements to these articles may mean the removal of some poor quality photos which in turn may hurt feelings. If this is going to start some kind of edit war then it may be a waist of time trying. I can provide you with examples of articles that need to be tidied up. I found this page because I was looking through some of the other images that have been added by this author and found these comments here 220.245.248.12 (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So there you have it. Also User:206.197.59.9. From the Potts Point edit summaries, it looks like the same person with 2 IPs.

Sardaka (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing sinister about having to use 2 different computers to edit due to geographical location. If you check the geographical location for the 2 using Whois you will find that it would be impossible for it to be the same person seeing as though one ip is in the USA and the other is in Oz 220.245.248.12 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been having problems with over use of house images in the Potts point article. I have only removed two images that seem to be of no value. There are plenty of other images in the article so I can't see why this user would be upset over 2 images being removed. In some cases in some of the Sydney suburban articles the only text that supports these images is the address for the house in a list of address. Before I do anything drastic I will seek advise from the Australian Wikipedia Notice Board where if an agreement is made the removal of some of these images may be more permanent. Also there is nothing wrong with using 2 ip's especially when it is physically impossible to be in the one place all the time 220.245.248.12 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed somewhat with the IP after viewing the article - it has too many pics and their relation to the article is not clearly defined, although a few of them are OK. I would say not "removal" as such but "move to a better location" - a gallery on Commons would love the photos for example. One can then make a link {{commonscat|Potts Point, New South Wales}} from the article so people can get to them. There's no problem with them existing or being available, just in context to the article they're presently housed in. Orderinchaos 22:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Brass razoo

Hi - where exactly did you get that image? It's just that the article says the brass razoo doesn't exist, and then there's a picture of one... it would be good to be able to caption the picture better. Cheers — sjorford++ 22:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a scan of a brass razoo that I purchased in the 1980s. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect revert

I noticed you reverted my edit to Hannah Montana (season 3). This was not appreciated because now 1. you may not have noticed it, but I had made another fix as well. now we again had 2 broken references in RED 2. ideally we should not have "loose" references in the references section, but all references should be in the form of footnotes. I'll fix it again. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it wasn't appreciated, but it was done for a specific, legitimate reason. As I indicated in my edit summary[34], the reference that you deleted was a general reference, and was incorrectly used elsewhere, where a more specific reference should have been used for the individual episode. My edit corrected that, although I do concede that I forgot to rename the episode's reference. That's now fixed. The deleted reference is in the "References" section as per Wikipedia:Citing sources#General reference, because it is "a source (that) supports a significant amount of the material in an article. It serves as a general reference, not linked to any particular part of the article." Obviously, it's a reference that supports every episode, so placing it as a general reference, rather than including it as a link to all (so far) 20 episodes, is preferable and appropriate. There's also an article convention that references from aired episodes are removed as the aired episode itself now forms the primary reference. I'm not sure if I entirely agree with it, but that's the convention and it has administrator support. The general reference becomes the major reference for each episode and removing it, as you did, means that most episodes don't have a reference in the article. The correction did not create any broken references as far as I can see. The references that were subsequently broken, were broken as the result of two edits by Ravens Gate.[35][36] --AussieLegend (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. Ok then. Debresser (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Satipo (Indiana Jones character)

Why are you deleting my article? My user talk page says that it isn't a notible fictional character. Well, go to the article List of characters in the Indiana Jones series. Satipo is there. Go to link title and type in Satipo. He's there too. And, best of all, look in the film credits of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Good old boy (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Notability. The character does not satisfy the requirements presented in that core policy. Additionally, the article is lacking citations from reliable sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Image positioning

It's clear to me that you have a high resolution monitor and have your browser window full size. Many people don't browse like that, and making changes to articles so they appear good for everyone takes a bit more subtlety than just moving all the images to the right. Yworo (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I use 1280x1024 on one PC but check at 1024x768 and 800x600, and use both IE and Firefox to get an idea of how things look on different monitors. I don't assume that everyone is using the same resolution or browser that I am. You might care to read MOS:IMAGES, which states "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." Breaking up the text fl;ow is far less desirable than swapping images from side to side. Keeping them right aligned ensures a similar result in all browsers at all resolutions. You should only need to move images to the left when there are too many images, as indicated in MOS:IMAGES. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, okay.... Didn't know that sections and subsections were treated differently in this regard... Yworo (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Future television at List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes

Could you elaborate on this? The only part of the guideline that you could mean, IMO, would be "an article dealing with a sudden burst of traffic". From the history of the article I can only see that the article is being edited actively, but I don't see any massive editing or sudden bursts of traffic. In addition, the template is used in a section called "Unaired episodes". If that's not making it obvious that it is about not yet aired episodes, I don't know what will. --Conti|✉ 11:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As indicated in the edit summary, I was specifically referring to the very first part of the sentence, which states "This template should only be used on articles where future information is an issue in some way". More specifically it refers to the next section, "such as information about an event/product that will change rapidly". This list, and the lists of many other TV programs watched by younger viewers, suffers from a lot of editing by people who add uncited information, information from sources that are less than reliable, or which is just vandalism. Future information is always an issue, which is why the template was added, since the message it gives seems applicable to what we see appearing there. The part of the guideline that you suggested does also apply, but to a lesser extent at the moment as the article is semi-protected until 1 August 2009. Despite that protection the article is being edited more than actively, it's being edited excessively compared to the normal traffic and I expect that to increase when the unregistered IPs who contribute to the mess that this article sometimes becomes are able to edit the page again. I have 491 pages on my watchlist and if you check my contributions you'll see that it's the page I edit the most, not because I'm adding anything but because I'm generally removing stuff that shouldn't have been added. Still, just because I'm cleaning up the article shouldn't negate the need for a warning for the casual reader. "Unaired episodes" doesn't provide that warning. It just says they're unaired. It doesn't say that the information contained within may not be correct. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I get your point now, although I'm still not sure if the template is the right one for this situation. We generally should use disclaimers only when absolutely necessary, per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, and the template itself isn't really clear, either. "It may contain non-definitive information based on advertisements, a website or interviews." doesn't read like a warning, but a mere notice that information is not final, even if it is properly sourced, and I don't think such a notice is warranted here. A warning for possibly unsourced material (or even plain vandalism) might be more appropriate, but I'm not sure if we have such a template. Another possibility would be to use an Edit notice, which would hopefully reduce the addition of unsourced material in the first place. --Conti|✉ 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

""I'm not sure if we have such a template" - Yes, that was the problem I found when I looked. The warning in {{Future television}} is not perfect but I think it does get the message across that the information may be less accurate than information in the rest of the article, which I think is warranted because it's generally a lot less accurate for sometimes several hours each day nd the casual reader may not be aware otherwise. As for an editnotice, there already is one. It hasn't helped. People tend to ignore it. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I totally missed that edit notice, even though it's big and bright and red. :) Well, so much for that. You could always use a custom warning, maybe based on Template:Crystal. Mostly I'm complaining because the template's text isn't really fitting. The first sentence is a statement of the obvious, the second isn't really needed in this case, and the third is yet another statement of the obvious. Exchanging that for a warning to our readers seems like a good idea to me. But, once again, we usually don't warn our readers like that even when there might be lots of unsourced information being added, so maybe such a warning should only be added when the article is unprotected again. --Conti|✉ 13:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, stating the obvious is not a bad thing. As you can see by the editnotice it's stating the obvious but it still is misunderstood. While I agree about disclaimers, the point here is to highlight that the section is not as accurate as the remiander of the article. As for adding the warning when the article is unprotected again, being protected hasn't stopped the problem, it has only reduced the level of innacuracy. And, of course, the warning is there for the casual reader, not for the editor. A custom warning is a distinct possibility but I'm not sure of the wording or of the need for yet another template when really, there's one that's good enough. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The point of the template is to highlight that the section may not be as accurate as the remainder of the article. I think there's a difference there, and that's why I'm not fond of such templates: Things "may" not be as accurate practically all the time. But in this case, I see your point, and I don't disagree with it, at least. A modified warning would be preferred by me, but either way, I'm fine with the template staying there while the article receives as much attention as it does currently. --Conti|✉ 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

FETCH!

AussieLegend I need help Extremeguy is vandalizing FETCH! With Ruff Ruffman I think he may be another sockpuppet of you know who. Wheeloffortune26 (talk) -- 15:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What's he doing? I've just been cleaning up some of his edits. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at Ckatz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the note, and the detective work... Ckatz^chat_spy 05:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

episodes

can you reverit 13 edits made by Rapjul on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Phineas_and_Ferb_episodes. he vandlised the page. i do not know how to do that many edits. going one by one takes to long thanks please respondExtremeguy (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverts?

Oh like you don't make more than 3 reverts a day, don't be bashing me when all I'm doing is helping. It seems like you're the only one who attacks me on ANY information I do. YOU change things without discussion so YOU have NO room to talk. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just warning you that you were almost in breach of WP:3RR over the edits you made. I also warned Extremeguy. In fact I warned him first because he is the one reverting without explanation. It wouldn't be fair to warn him and not you, given that you're both involved. The warning benefits you anyway, you wouldn't want to find yourself blocked because you breached 3RR, would you? You're welcome. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry didn't realize you did him first, thanks for the help. He also hasn't opened a discussion in the Talk Page, he just keeps reverting.... - Alec2011 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you haven't bothered adding a citation in support of the production codes to stop him reverting, which he's entitled to do if you add uncited information, so you're actually more guilty than him. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen anyone else show a citation in any other series? For all we know, all of the JONAS, SWAC, and and other Disney show could have the wrong prod. codes.... why is this show any different? - Alec2011 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference here is that the production codes have been challenged. Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core policy of Wikipedia, is quite clear on this:

“ Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. ”

As the material has been challenged you are now required to provide a citation from a reliable source. If you can't, the material should be removed. What exists in another article isn't a reasonable argument for its continued inclusion, it's probably a good reason to delete the material from the other article. What you certainly do not want to do is continue adding the information after having been warned about edit warring.[37][38] That's edit warring. It goes against our BOLD, revert, discuss policy, and is likely to get you blocked. You now need to reach consensus before re-adding the disputed material. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Prod. Codes

Remember back when I edited the 'He Could Be The One' episode and added 326-327 and you asked me about it? Well, I'm still not sure from my research and stuff it could be possible again. You said you wouldn't think it would be possible and why would Disney do that.... however I was taking a look at the iCarly episodes, and BAM there it was. For the new iCarly "Movies" they are One Hour long, however the prod codes are 206-207 (example). That could have been possible for the 'He Could Be The One' episode as well. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Could have been possible" isn't good enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. You need a citation from a reliable source confirming it. There really is no way around this. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm going to put it down or saying I'm trying to go around it, you always seem to say that, and go to that conclusion; however I'm asking YOUR opinion on it, do you think Disney could have done something like that? - Alec2011 (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

fetch air date

in your recent edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_FETCH!_with_Ruff_Ruffman_episodes&diff=304916091&oldid=304915606 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FETCH!_with_Ruff_Ruffman&diff=304916565&oldid=304909240. you changed it it the 11th. I know the reference says the 11th but, the 11th is just a sneek peek at the season confired by WGBH emailed them. the 14th is when the season offically starts. if you whant me to put the 11th can you tell ne why before you or I change the date. Extremeguy (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a date AussieLegend =) Wheeloffortune26 (talk)-- 00:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

FETCH

AussieLegend why did you get rid of my video it can't be inappropriate it just can't be It's a preview of Season 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheeloffortune26 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Facebook fails a number of the criteria set out in Wikipedia:External links for external links. In fact, Facebook is specifically mentioned as a site to avoid.WP:ELNO #10 --AussieLegend (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh Ok oh and one more thing I added some Episode Summaries from Season 4 that I got from [39] why were there copyright violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheeloffortune26 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the episode summaries you added were direct copies of what is at that site. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. In short, you can't copy and paste information from a website, or any other source, into a Wikipedia article unless the source has a verifiable licence allowing you to do so. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you made not have heard of me, but i suggest you compare User:Wheeloffoturne26's edits with banned user Mayme08's edits, Mayme was an indef blocked user that used multiple socks to edit pages like Fetch!, Wheel of Fortune, and Betsy's Kindergarten Adventures. If you compare edits you'll realize that is a sock. The Cool Kat (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheeloffortune26 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

if you look at other fetch seasons are the episodes also copyright violations? why can't season 4 be added than.thanks please respondExtremeguy (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked the other seasons for copyright violations. Should I? As for season 4, if the edit summary is a word for word or substantial copy of something on another site it can't be used here. All edits at Wikipedia must be your own work. It can't be a copy of someone elses unless they have given specific, verifiable permission for it to be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okat, i may be jumping to conclusions, but i think that "ExtremeGuy" is just another sock of "Mayme08". _{TCK| chat} 14:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

NCIS: Los Angeles

You might like to see the page [40], which confirms that Eric Beal, played by Barrett Foa will be appearing in NCIS: Los Angeles. I told you so all along that he was going to be in the show, but you wouldn't listen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewconnell (talk • contribs) 17:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The point you seem to be missing is that your claim was worthless because it was missing a citation from a reliable source in support of your claim. I suggest you review Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a core policy of Wikipedia.

“ The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. ”

Even now, the url you provided does not specifically state that he is a recurring character. It just says he'll be in an episode with Pauley Perrette. The claim that he is recurring is still original research --AussieLegend (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

HM

Like tommy2net is a reliable source, but I'm not going to fight I know what I know and you know what you know, some people think they are better than some but i'm going with info I've gotten from Disney. Thanks for your time. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that tommy2net is a reliable source but the tommy2net reference doesn't support what you're claiming. You've added information from several sources (uncited and cited) to come up with a claim that is, for the most part, uncited. That's WP:SYNTH and is unnacceptable at Wikipedia. You've been told about citing sources and original research previously. Please don't continue to ignore Wikipedia policies. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why does the Disney Schedule say: September 20, 2009 - 7:30 PM - Hannah Montana - Uptight (Oliver's Alright) - 223 - TV G - 00:23:00? - Alec2011 (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What Disney schedule? url please. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be sending some info in about a week (have to wait till after the 6-week rule by Disney). - Alec2011 (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New Suite Life On Deck Logo

Since you seem to care about the Suite Life on Deck page alot, I wanted to ask you if you thought the new Season 2 version of the logo, with the sky background instead of the ocean, was O.K. or not. If not please revert it. Thanks! Divod (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

icarly

i need help on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_iCarly_episodes about dissictions going on. here's the whole story.

On http://starrymag.com/content.asp?ID=3909&CATEGORY=INTERVIEWS Nathen said there are going to be 45 episodes for season two, But on http://fanlala.com/star/NathanKress/video/927 interview, he said that there are finishing season 3 with the production codes in the 230"s already. on http://fanlala.com/star/NathanKress/video/991 he said they are doing a photo shoot for season 3 that might air at the end of the summer. (now we know it’s not ture now) At the teen choice awards Miranda Cosgrove stated in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9iD1GoenEM&feature=channel_page, she specifically states that they are still working on season TWO. Dan also said the show will be going on break for awhile latter this mounth. nick siad http://series.and.tv.com/cancelled-shows-2009-icarly-gets-renewed-for-a-new-season-by-nickelodeon/ iCarly was orded for season 3. Aslo the production codes are still in the 200's. there have been debates about this for the past mounth and would mean icarly will end season two in 2010. do you anything about production codes? what is your oppin about the depates on 40 episodedes for season 2 and Elie Mullier. thanks please respondExtremeguy (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Semtember 19 VS. September 26

It lists both here and in the episode list as the first episode having aired Sept.19, yet it actually aired Sept. 26. When I went to change it, a hidden message said that it aired on the 19th in another country, and not to change it. I have two questions on this: First of all, WHAT COUNTRY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Second of all, isn't this article meant to tell us the most relevant date, Sept. 26 when it first aired in its HOME COUNTRY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Divod (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The episode first aired on September 19 in the UK. Wikipedia is not US-centric. We indicate the first date that the series aired in the world, not just the US. That is the most relevant date. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

All the other dates are from the U.S. though, so to put in this one U.K. date with all the other U.S ones is confusing, even if it did air in the U.K. first. Furthermore,the U.K. date is mentioned in the internatonal list, where it says it wasn't a premiere but just an "advanced airing", a one time thing until Feb. 09. Such a date is not qualifiable as a "first airing" nor is it relevant enough either. Divod (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact is that it aired in the UK on September 19, 2008, so this is what we use as a "first aired date". As I earlier indicated, Wikipedia is not US centric so, even if the series first aired in a non-US country we use that date. As for the difference between an "advanced airing" and a "premiere", that's irrelevant. The first aired date doesn't concern itself with that. It's simply the date that the series first aired and an "advanced airing" still qualifies as an airing. I'm afraid your assessment seems to constitute original research so I'm restoring the article accordingly. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Surrender

I admit that I was wrong for changing the date. I have no further refutations of your logic and will leave it alone. However, I am curious exactly where it says "Wikipedia is not US centric", especially since Wikipedia comes in different languages for different countries and this is the U.S. one (unless I'm mistaken). (Provide link to location.) Thanks! Divod (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this is the English language Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia.[41] Wikipedia comes in different languages for speakers of those languages, not for different countries. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm new at archiving so I used help from this link: Step-by-Step Instructions - Archiving a Talk Page which I found at Help: Archiving a talk page. If the information there is wrong or bad, I'm sorry, but please inform him of that. Sorry! Divod (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm new at archiving so I used help from this link: Step-by-Step Instructions - Archiving a Talk Page which I found at Help: Archiving a talk page. If the information there is wrong or bad, I'm sorry, but please inform him of that. Sorry! Divod (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

File?

How can I upload PDF files to Wikipedia for a reference? - Alec2011 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In the column to the left of the edit window is a box titled "toolbox". Click on the "Upload file" link and follow the instructions. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a .pdf file sent out by Disney that has Just the premieres episodes for the month of September. If you need further proof here's the first copy of the November 2008 schedule that has all of the episode airing for the month and the No Sugar, Sugar episode before it got taken off the schedule: [[42]] - Alec2011 (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's great, but it's the 2008 schedule and none of that is in dispute. It has nothing to do with current airings. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I JUST sent you the September 2009 schedule premieres. I'm showing you that info is from Disney, the 2008 schedule has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, I'm just showing that it's proof that I get the info from Disney. - Alec2011 (talk)!

The point you're constantly missing is that the information has to be verifiable. At the moment it isn't, so it can't be included in the articles. There is no way around this. You have to wait until there is a specific source that anyone can see. I've explained further on your talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

FETCH

your edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_FETCH!_with_Ruff_Ruffman_episodes&curid=19959617&diff=308332995&oldid=308331127. season 4 episode 20 is most likely the wrong title. Note *episode title could be wrong but will not know the official title untill the pbs web site is fully updated for season 4. right now this is the title. on http://www.tv.com/fetch!-with-ruff-ruffman/show/61522/season-4-pre-discusson/topic/77272-1273019/msgs.html?page=1&tag=content;main Jumpman256 post 30 states Okay, spoiler hounds--here are the titles and brief information on all 20 episodes! SPOILER http://www.iptv.org/k12catalog/list_detail.cfm?showid=227 The title of the finale is wrong, obviously, but..... Gowever, this raises a problem, which I will outline in another post.... I agree with him because season 3 titles were wrong as well. don't you see what i mean the title for episodes is the wrong title. why can't I put it. if not in the episodes summeries where. thanks please respondExtremeguy (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you follow the link included in my edit summary. What you want to add is a disclaimer and we don't use them in articles. As for the posts at tv.com, they're forum posts and not considered to be reliable sources. On the other hand, the TV guide provided by Iowa Public Television is a reliable source so, until such time as a more reliable source shows the IPTV guide to be wrong, that's what the article should say the episode title is and no disclaimer is necessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Jim Conroy I'm the voice of Ruff Ruffman I heard that you guys are having trouble with vandals well I'm here to help I started Wikipedia and I like it Hope to see you there --JimConroy38 (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

regarding this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FETCH!_with_Ruff_Ruffman&curid=5344719&diff=309455668&oldid=309453923. first the fetch seasons always start and end in the same year 2010. aslo look at the other seasons they are the same patteren. I did not add the mounth and date yet because it has not been confired. so why can,t 2010 be there. it was there when I added season 5 in July. and now your sayiing it can't be there. also fetch will end its 4th season on October 12, 2009. if you start on 9-14 and counth 20 episodes without counting weekends and fridays it will end on October 12, 2009. thanks please resopondExtremeguy (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. I've already addressed this there. What you've said here is original research and is not acceptable. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Can you PLEASE help me with my userboxes? they've gone out of wack and I have no idea what to do with them.... JaidynM ````

What are you trying to do, get them all in one column or two? --AussieLegend (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

One column in a straight line. And how do you do that thing where it says the date and time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaidynM (talk • contribs) 08:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, what do I do?

A particular user has been repeatedly asked to use the edit summaries, and refuses to do so (I will not tell you who it is - except they edit NCIS all the time. Big enough hint?) For me as a casual editor fighting vandalism and various garbage edits, it means I must look at every single one of her edits to see what she has put up now. Any advice? She has been asked repeatedly, but just removes it from her talk page. What now? TristaBella (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I know who you mean. She's also replaced full citations with basic citations, which makes no sense. Unfortunately, she does use edit summaries occasionally so I don't think there's much we can do at this point. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

icarly help

Even though we don't know if season 2 is going to be split in half. Since there is no source that says it. When the episode iThink they kissed airs and there are new clips in the theme song, can I put new clips in theme song as the reference or in the edit summury. Can You tell me what to do if that happens and if that's okay. thanks please respondExtremeguy (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A hing in the hood?

Saw it on my watchlist :) After looking at the SEIFA data it is amazing how poor that suburb is - it's well below anything in Perth - especially considering nothing else in the Newcastle/LM metro compares. Orderinchaos 10:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Twerp Attack  ;-)

Thanks for your help, AussieLegend. Trigaranus (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For you

		The TV Star
		For keeping an eye on NCIS-related articles, I hereby award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work :-) SoWhy 16:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the archiving! ROxBo (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Townsville, Queensland

Ciao! Looks like a school computer may be being "misused" ;o - if you catch this again, mention the 137.219.194.87 and 137.219.194.97 come up to gatcf.ad.jcu.edu.au. THanks. Skier Dude (talk)

Wow! I thought it was a grade or high school- note my surprise when it turns out to be James Cook University and they weren't vandalizing their own school's article :) Skier Dude (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

University of Newcastle

Hi, thanks for the help with the UoN wiki site - it really needs some work done on it to bring it up to scratch. One question though - why change the size of the photo? I think it looks a lot better in a larger format due to the size of the images in it. Thanks again, User:Shagudiga —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Images#Forced image size specifies that image sizes shouldn't be forced. This makes all images a consistent size and allows logged in users who have specified default image sizes in their preferences to dispay images at their preferred sizes. There really is no need to force image sizes since it's just a matter of clicking on the image to see it in better detail, which is usually required, even if the image size is forced. Forcing image sizes should be the exception. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

fetch episodes

I want to add the summries to the list. How come you can't copy them straight frtom the sight. if you look at icarly episodes, drake and josh episodes, zoey 101 episodes, fetch season 2,1,3 episodes and other shows they are coppied from the sites people get them from. why are those allowed andd not for season 4 of fetch. I posted something on the icarly episodes and no body ele had a probelm with it even though it was coppied. Other's are doing it to. thanks please respondExtremeguy (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is explained in the first paragraphs of Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Content can not be copied directly from another website to Wikipedia unless the website has a clear statement that it is permissible to do so. Copying content from another website without permission is a violation of that site's copyright. If you know of episode summaries that are copyright violations you should delete them, with an appropriate comment in the edit summary. The only reason they exist in the articles you mention is that nobody has noticed that they are copyright violations and deleted them. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me AussieLegend I think Extremeguy is doing a good job with the FETCH! Page and I think you should continue letting Extremeguy putting the rest of Season 4 before it starts on 9/11. Sincerely Yours Truly --JimConroy38 (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Provided he doesn't breach Wikipedia's various policies there's no reason he can't continue. Are you suggesting he should be allowed to? --AussieLegend (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

i don't see it any where on the pbskids fetch site that info can not be coppied. do you know where it is. since I don't see any can I copy a little bit of episode dicriptions from there. thanks please respondExtremeguy (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated above, you need a clear statement on the website sating that you can copy it. Copyright is automatically added to all original works. You don't need to add a copyright notice on everything you write. If there is no copyright notice you can't copy it. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know who I am. --JimConroy38 (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I know who you claim to be, but that's irrelevant. I'm the Queen of England by the way. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm Jim Conroy the voice of Ruff. If you don't believe me that's fine but it's true. --JimConroy38 (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is, there is no proof that you are who you say you are. Anybody can say they are somebody on the internet, but that doesn't mean it's true. Of course, if you are Jim Conroy, you should consider your input to the article very closely because you have an immediate conflict of interest. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think JimConroy38 (talk) is teeling the truth. Just look at his edits they are very spred apart. also he has only edited fetch and one think of Barney. also he knows who won season 5 already. you can tell though he only edits at night.Extremeguy (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay I am going to ask Him a question that is realted to the show. here's what I did Okay let's give this a try. Question's

How to you produce the show fetch with ruff ruffman from start to finish? How do you Get a hold of Kate taylor or macy guther from the show? what kind of screen is used when you produce fetch? Do you travel with the contestants while doing the voice of Ruff or how is it done? How long does it take to Make one season from start to finish? please explain answers in detail Also I suggest that you make a twitter account or some other kind of account. So you you know Ruffman is already taken for a user name. Also you could update the production and Cast and crew section on the fetch page thanks please respond if you can think of other questions let me know Extremeguy (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Scrubs

Do you own the Scrubs page, as in - were you the one that created it or not?. It seems that any edit i make, you come up with excuse for it not to stay. And to be honest, some of the reasons are pretty lame. LeighMichelle75 (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody owns Wikipedia articles, not even you. For the record, I've only removed 5 of your 731 (total) edits in the last 5,000 edits that I've made on all the pages that you've edited, not just Scrubs (TV series). All of the edits have been for very justifiable reasons:

• 14 June 2009 - Removal of a hidden note without explanation and addition of format information that has been disputed and removed by other editors. Doesn't really need explaining. The hidden note provided clarification of the finale because there confusion as to whether the finale was one or two episodes. You also chose to increase the title card to a ridiculously large size in this edit.
• 14 June 2009 - Edit warring. Removal of the hidden note and addition of the disputed formats, again without explanation. After this I warned you about this.[43]
• 4 September 2009 - Addition of uncited and, at this time, useless information. Although I could have removed this, as the information is uncited, I chose to hide it, until such time as there is some cited, useful information to add. Please note, as per WP:SEASON, terms such as "Spring" should be avoided. Instead, more specific dates, which you didn't provide, should be used. The addition of this information also falls under WP:CRYSTAL.
• 4 September 2009 - Addition of incorrect number of seasons and episodes. As I indicated in my edit summary, the "num_seasons" field is for "The number of seasons (non-UK) or series (UK) produced" as indicated in {{Infobox Television}}. Eight seasons have been produced, not nine. Also as I indicated, 168 episodes including a one hour finale have been aired, not 168 plus one.
• 4 September 2009 - Change from "168" (the correct number of episodes aired) to "167" plus the one hour finale. As indicated in my edit summary, readers shouldn't be required to calculate the number of episodes. The note about the finale is ancillary to the number of episodes, not a replacement for the number.

You might also note that I am, by no means, the only editor who has removed your edits. Quite a few have been removed, at Scrubs and many other pages. I suppose they were all picking on you? As for me providing "lame" reasons, which is clearly not the case, at least I provide edit summaries, unlike somebody.[44] --AussieLegend (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For sacrificing yourself for the sake of wikipedia and fixing article Jessica Tovey. VeryRusty (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and of course, LOL. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Tovey

I have protected this article per your request here. But please try to discuss with the IPs and warn them appropriately for their vandalism edits. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ally McBeal

Hi! I've seen your edit and I would like to ask you to switch the titles then because "Turning Thirty" is the episode in which Ally turns thirty, not the one where she engages in virtual stuff. The episodes must have aired out of order. Also check [45]. Dmarex (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Closure

Yesterday I tried to withdraw' my nomination but it was overidden because I apparently didn't withdraw it properly. I would have been happy to self withdraw with a resounding strong keep. This is what I have now done to correct what I did before, this was my original attention before I was overridden too. the reason why I self withdrew because I wanted you to see I accepted your concerns and was intent on not causing further conflict. I don't want it to look as if I didn't try to appease the sitation myself which having a cloasure by somebody else makes it look as if I didn't try to do anything myself to end the conflict. This further disruption is unnecessary, let it rest. It was my nomination and my intention yesterday before it was overidden was to withdraw nomination with a resounding strong keep. It was my nomination so I had the right to do that, that was what was intended by my attempted closure yesterday so this is what should remain. Himalayan 09:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't have the right. It was discussed at WP:ANI and it was agreed that a third party would close the TfD. Accordingly, a sysop did so. You have the right to withdraw your nomination but you have no right to delete the comments of others. I have raised your inappropriate reversion at WP:ANI.--AussieLegend (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored Protonk's closing message but in a way that acknowledges I withdrew my own nomination first which is correct. Again running off to ANI just when I am in the middle of trying to sort things out with you is not the way to go. Himalayan 10:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You really need to stop criticising people for doing the right thing when you have made, and continue to make, so very many mistakes. You've been registered at Wikipedia for only 16 days and have somehow managed to clock up almost 3,300 edits. I think you need to step back, stop editing for a while and learn how Wikipedia works. Then you might find it a little easier. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

HM Episode

I added the new info for the Uptight (Oliver's Alright) and it's EXACTLY the same as Season 2's episode. - Alec2011 (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for future reference, even though everything is the same as the No Sugar, Sugar episode (and promo stills are the same too), we should keep everything how is it, and not move anything until the episode has premiered correct. We have all the info for now until the episode has premiered. So we shouldn't move it or stop people from moving it. - Alec2011 (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As the episode now, finally, has a citation, that shouldn't be a problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I'm just worried that some un-registered visitors see that both episode seem "the same" they would move or delete it. Something like that happened a few weeks ago and No Sugar, Sugar was deleted form the list because they saw that Uptight (Oliver's Alright) was the episode. - Alec2011 (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a possibility with every Wikipedia article. That's why we watchlist articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I see, I'll do that too :). Also, did you just add a little bit more to my episode summary? - Alec2011 (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:September 09 - User_talk:81.111.4.175

Just to let you know, I (forgot to log in) did not add any content, just fix the table code there and remove the extra internal link code. The link was [[[[ ]]]] when I found it. Check the History before you go give warnings. --Lcawte (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Penguins of Madagascar summary issues

Hey, do me a favor. Let the article for an American TV show be edited by an American. I don't edit kangaroo pages, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.44.36 (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Civility if you wish to continue editing here. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

HM Proof

Here's an extention to the Season 3 episode of HM. Here's the promo fro the new episode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h-eDzJorA8&feature=player_embedded There are re-shot clips of the episode. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree not to vandalize, but...

OK, I agree not to vandalize again, but tell me, How could you block/ban me if you're not an administratir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.44.149 (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Who said I would block you? I'll just raise a case at WP:AIV. The way to avoid that happening is to edit responsibly. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted 1 edit by 70.75.15.165 identified as vandalism to last revision by Accdude92.

I did not revise article talk selena gomez...Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the edit history you did. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

lol O Yeah, such a minor edit I forgot I did it!Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 14:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10