User talk:Alex 21/Archive 5

Nomination for deletion of Template:Doctor Who episode list

Template:Doctor Who episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to remove the template? I wasn't aware of this. o.O No need to file an ANI report; next time, just post on the talk page. Alex|The|Whovian 16:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: There. I've reverted myself. Next time, just let me know. o.O Alex|The|Whovian 16:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sherlock "The Last Vow" in Sherlock episode list

Regarding the end of Sherlock "The Last Vow," you're removing my edits when I'm trying to be helpful and clear for readers of the article. Short of providing you with the video of the episode currently on my hard drive which shows that my edit makes sense, the only other source I can think of is the mere video I cited from Youtube, which was ripped directly from the episode and not edited. Because I don't want to have my edit undone again and start an undo war over what I thought would be a simple language correction for clarity's sake, you can go ahead and watch it yourself and choose to edit it or not based on how possessive you want to be of this article. Please be a little understanding that this sort of editing makes it really difficult for less active editors to find this effort worth their time when so many edits are just immediately undone by people who stake claims on articles like this.

Steviemjh (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Steviemjh: I've already watched the episode many months ago, and precise specific of small events aren't a necessary for episode summaries. For the sake of the article, it's a video of Jim Moriarty. Such specifics do not change the meaning nor understanding of the episode's events. Whether a video of a mouth has been videoshopped onto his face is immaterial to Wikipedia and can be found in the episode itself. Especially once the credits finally end, and there's a video of Moriarty himself saying "Did you miss me?" Alex|The|Whovian 08:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Dominion (season 1)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dominion (season 1), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.moviexk.net/dominion-tv-series-2014.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Series overview

When replacing raw code in series overview tables with {{Series overview}} please ensure that you include the <includeonly> and </includeonly> tags present in the raw code. These are necessary to stop the entire episode list article reloading each time one of the links are clicked. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I'll be sure to keep that in mind. I create the templated Series Overviews with Javascript code I run in the console, so I'll add the tags in. Alex|The|Whovian 09:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 9

Recently you made an edit to Doctor Who Series 9, listing Episodes 11 and 12 as separate production blocks, with your source being merely a post on a forum saying this, and you seem to consider this a more reliable source than DoctorWhoTV who only post information that has been confirmed by the BBC, meaning that you removed information from a reliable source based on information from unreliable source. This can not happen again. 79.153.68.192 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Doctor Who TV post is outdated with this new information. The print screen was only a summary - the source itself is Doctor Who Magazine, which is far more reliable. Alex|The|Whovian 11:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The source is still unreliable as it does not state which issue and contradicts information from the BBC, meaning that you have nothing reliable to back up your claim that Episodes 11 and 12 are separate so do not make the edit again as it claims rumour to be fact and therefore is disruptive. 79.153.68.192 (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a source nonetheless, and while it may require updating, it exists. Doctor Who TV only copies information from the BBC, and does not receive it from them, and is not endorsed by the BBC, so your claims there are incorrect. Reverts will be considered disruptive, and my be reported for violation of 3RR. Alex|The|Whovian 11:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If that statement in the post really was in DWM, then how come in DWM Issue 488 (August 2015), in an interview with Steven Moffat it states, "Once recording for Episode 10 has finished, work will commence on Episodes 11 and 12, which will bring this year's series to a close, while Episode 9 will be the last installment of the 2015 series to be recorded." 79.153.68.192 (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You accuse me of posting random information without a source, then you do exactly the same. Interesting. Alex|The|Whovian 11:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Your source is unreliable why do you continue to post information that is rumour as opposed to fact.79.153.68.192 (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Because my source is extremely reliable, and the issue in question does in fact contain the information added. Alex|The|Whovian 11:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue isn't stated and the most recent issue contradicts this, your source is completely unreliable.79.153.68.192 (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Funny thing, the issue is stated: Issue 489. I do believe that your issue is redundant and out-of-date. Alex|The|Whovian

Issue 489 is not out yet, so that is impossible.79.153.68.192 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It was released 4 days ago: 23 July, 2015. Perhaps you ought to check up on your information. Alex|The|Whovian 12:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Issue 489 will be for september, it is not out yet. 79.153.68.192 (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who Magazine: First issue 17 October 1979 (489 issues as of 23 July 2015)

Doctor Who Magazine on the App Store on iTunes: Top In-App Purchases #7: Doctor Who 2015 Issue 489 Alex|The|Whovian 12:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think i see where the confusion is coming from. Issue 488: "Once recording of Episode 10 is finished, work will commenced on Episodes 11 and 12, which will bring this year's series to a close, while Episode 9 will be the last installment of the 2015 series to be recorded." Issue 489: Episode 11 will be filmed, then Episode 9, then Episode 12 - Not exact wording, but it's this essentially. Issue 489 is much more RECENT, therefore it is NOT outdated, which must mean that this is CORRECT. Badgerdog2 (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Source for the episode 9 Doctor Who

Hi,

Why are you removing a maintenance template with the reason, doesn't need to be official.

Firstly, any sources on wikipedia doesn't need to be the original source, doesn't allowed sources without original sources (or rumors).

Secondly, the source provided said "it has been announced" but didn't said where. maybe it is not. Then the episode hasn't been film yet so, how can we be sure of that.

Lastly, I just add a maintenance template to said that the source is dubious and need a better source from the official, but research I made, looks like its only rumors (that could be right but isn't announced by the BBC or Mark himself), for me it has to be remove, because official announcement table shouldn't be melting with unofficial.

Cordialy, --Jitrixis (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jitrixis: Den of Geek is an extremely reliable source that doesn't post rumours - if it says something has happened, then it has - and has been used as a source widely over every Doctor Who page. It is not a source with requirements of having to be backed up, per say, and not every source needs to officially be from the BBC. If they do, take a look at the reference list on Doctor Who (series 9), and replace every one (almost all) of the references. Apparently I'm not the only editor that disagrees with the unrequired need of these templates. Alex|The|Whovian 01:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Yes, I really understand that Den of Geek is maybe a trusted website, but I really search if they're other website which talk about exactly the same thing (not the proof he wrote for the show to this series), so even if we don't need to source with the official announcement, it has to be announced, and I really try to find another website which said "he wrote the episode 9" but looks like there isn't. So it's why the fact can be dubious (even the website is trusted, this is the only one website that confirmed this fact).

You know, I work on other kind of article on the french-speaking Wikipedia about sport and mainly about sport results. I know this is a different Wikipedia and rules are different but it leads to the same feelings. And there's a thing about updating results, the project warns "Wikipedia is not a live page, results must not being updated without confirmation", so here I didn't wanna strong on the word confirmation (related to the fact that a referee can still change the result), but on the fact that something which actually happened (now or in the future) has to be sure and not quite sure. So I didn't meant this has to be deleted (even if I deleted on the french wiki) but it's the fact that generally on wikipedia if something is dubious or another thought can be, you have to write for each thought a line with their source without taking part of one, and generally it didn't appear in a final table which is generally an official, validated, referenced, etc... table. You see, if I put on the same cell every though, it would looks like : Writer, Mark or Susie or another one, so generally the best is to write "unknown" until we know. --Jitrixis (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Gotham (TV series)

Hi there. Is there someplace that someone could get a a logo for the series? - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kiraroshi1976: All done. Alex|The|Whovian 00:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I need help

How on Earth do I reply to you on my own talk page? I'm so sorry, I'm not smart enough for all of this and it just gets me frusturated. Anyways, I can't find the tab on the top-right and I don't know who the other editor is. All I just want to do here is edit articles and after I created a summary, that other editor took my summary and made it into his own. It was the same but his had "big words" so, I just give up. :( Thanks anyways. :)

@UndertheDomefan: Firstly. You can reply on your own talk page by clicking [edit source] next to the header belonging to the section I created on your talk page. Secondly. You need to look for the "View history" tab on the Under the Dome article - it's right next to "Read" and "Edit source". Thirdly. Wikipedia policy dictates that nobody owns any part of Wikipedia, so the summary you added is not "yours", but the article's - everyone is allowed to edit it. Lastly. When posting on talk pages, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ - this allows other editors to know who posts on the talk page in question. Alex|The|Whovian 02:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I found the tab and I know the other editor now but when I go to his talk, I can't send him a message like I did to yours. And, when I said my own summary, I meant my own edits. He used my edits and keeps leaving out 2 important keys. I keep adding them but he keeps removing them and I'm sorry for claiming the summary to be "mine" even though it's not, just like you said. Also, as I said before, this is too much and I'm stupid. I suffer from several brain problems. :'( Oh, let me guess! We can't talk about our personal lives either, huh? All I want is for this other editor to leave my 2 important keys! After deleting my summary edits and retyping it all. ((Stupid)) and, how do you sign your own message? Do I just add tiles or my user name too? Well, here goes nothing. UndertheDomefan (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)UndertheDomefanUndertheDomefan (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is Haqua121, as I'm not logged in currently(Having some issues atm). I'm very sorry that this issue has appeared on your talk page Alex. I made every effort to explain in detail the reasons for reverting some of his edits that were in all honesty quite needless to the article. But to clear a few things up, I didn't copy anything this editor had written, I originally just checked out the page and saw one of the worst summaries that provided little to no context and was very hard to follow. For reference this is what he had written originally. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Under_the_Dome_(season_3)&oldid=673949282 But as the editor in question has admitted to suffering from mental health issues, I won't pursue this further and will cease editing that page. Feel free to respond on my talk page and I'll get back to you when I can. 81.98.130.254 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@UndertheDomefan: Perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you, then, as there's a policy where we don't discriminate for disability. If the two "important" key points are being removed by a more-experienced editor, then it is more than likely for a solid reason, and you should discuss it with him, and not keep reverting. There's also no need for sarcasm.

@Haqua121: All good, I've been watching the editing process on the page. The issues that the editor in question has at hand does not and should not affect us, and if there are edits that require doing to make the article in question better, they should be implemented. I recommend that UndertheDomefan read up on how to edit better, before going further with anything else. Alex|The|Whovian 00:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, okay? Get that through your head! I'm sorry! How else will I ever forgive myself to you, Alex? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UndertheDomefan (talk • contribs) 04:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Um. There's nothing to "forgive"? You're being overdramatic. There's no need to reply to this, and come back to this issue with a clear head. Alex|The|Whovian 04:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please forgive my "overdramaticness" then? That way we can leave this behind us and live in peace? Please? Do you forgive me? UndertheDomefan (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)UndertheDomefanUndertheDomefan (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Whatever. Alex|The|Whovian 05:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Galavant page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Another warning

It seems that you again need to be reminded of this warning:

"Per WP:VANDAL: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing valid warnings from another editor's talk page is not a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia". The editor has the right to see the warnings that you deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: As can removing posts that are not their own from a discussion simply because they don't like it. Alex|The|Whovian 13:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing/Alakzi

There's a point where it's not worth continuing. I left two valid warnings on Alakzi's talk page. If he reverts again at the template talk page I'll certainly mention the conduct of both editors at ANI. Alakzi's conduct in particular has become of significant concern lately. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd back an ANI report against the two of them, should it be filed. Alex|The|Whovian 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi has now reverted four times on the template talk page, so WP:AN3 is also a possibility. I'd really like to watch some TV though. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop

@Alakzi, AlexTheWhovian, AussieLegend, and Pigsonthewing: This has got to be the dumbest edit war I have ever seen: the four of you are fighting over the name of an obscure template that already has a redirect of the same name, and then you are deleting templated warnings from each other's user talk page -- seriously? When all four of you are blocked, expect to serve the block for the duration because I expect you will have a hard time finding a sympathetic administrator to unblock you. Just stop it. All of you. Please. [Posted contemporaneously to all four user talk pages.] Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Naturally, our sincerest apologies for reverting a vandalistic user who removes comments simply because he doesn't like them. If he had contributed towards it instead of taking instant action (reminiscent of the colour issue), we wouldn't be here. Alex|The|Whovian 13:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Move review

I also pinged you here about this, but a reminder to use Wikipedia:Move review in the future to contest a WP:RM discussion that has been closed in lieu of undoing closed discussions. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: The revert was completely justified, as per my reasons on the template's talk page. Alex|The|Whovian 01:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Lindsey Stirling article reverts

Hello,

Per WP:REVEXP and WP:REV ("Revert vandalism on sight, but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. Edit warring is prohibited. See three-revert rule. Editors should provide an explanation when reverting."), please explain the reversion of good-faith edits in the edit summary, such as the one you reverted in the Lindsey Stirling article (more than one time, actually). Otherwise, potentially good editors can get discouraged and decide not to become Wikipedians. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dontreader: I've reverted twice in two months: This one because one collaboration is does not classify as an "associated act". This one was unsourced and redlinked. Alex|The|Whovian 11:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but I wish you had provided those explanations in the edit descriptions. Also, remember that red links are not necessarily a bad thing since many articles get created by people who spot red links. The main problem, in my opinion, is that it's a DVD, not a CD, but that person's intentions were good. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dontreader: Such edits have been made before, and reverted as such with explanations - one only needs to check the history before making such edits. And in my view, if you're going to link to an article yourself (as per the IP user), you should create the article first, then add the link to it. Alex|The|Whovian 12:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Black Sails

The relevance of Category:American LGBT-related television programs has to be explicitly explained in the body of the article. If the category itself is the only appearance of "LGBT" or any of the four words that it's an acronym for anywhere in the entire article, then the category isn't appropriate — regardless of what anybody claims about how central it was to the show, the article has to explain it for the category to be justified. For it to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the show, the article has to specifically explain how it's a defining characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Category:American LGBT-related television programs: "which deal with or feature significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device". Perhaps a rewatch of the series is in order - in the case of this series, it most certainly is an important plot device. Alex|The|Whovian 16:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The show is not now, and has never been, broadcast on any television service that I have access to, so a "rewatch" (or even a "first watch") is not even possible for me to do — so "watch the show for yourself and see" is never an appropriate answer on Wikipedia. The relevance of LGBT-related content must be explicitly clarified in the article itself for the category to be there, so that the category's appropriateness will be clear to any reader regardless of whether they've already seen the show for themselves or not — if the explanation of the category's relevance is not present in the article as written, then the category cannot be there until the explanation gets added, and "watch the show for yourself" is not an appropriate answer to anybody who questions it.

The problem is that editors have added shows to the category which have never actually contained a smidge of LGBT-related content at all as a form of vandalism, or to shows which once featured a three-second background appearance by a non-speaking extra in drag as a form of WP:TRIVIA — so as one of the people who gets stuck having to constantly monitor the category for inappropriate additions, I cannot just take "somebody felt this category was appropriate" as sufficient basis for leaving it there in perpetuity even if the article fails to explain why it's there. And if I rushed out to watch every television show in the category for myself as primary source verification of the category's appropriateness or lack thereof, then I wouldn't have any time left to eat, sleep, poop or edit Wikipedia.

The potential audience for an article about Black Sails is not limited to people who've already seen every episode of the show 17 times and already know every last thing there is to know about it, so that we don't actually have to explain anything about it to them — people who know nothing about the show, and want to learn something about it, are part of the article's potential readership too. So the category's relevance has to be clearly explained in the article, because people who already have the inside knowledge about why it's there are not the only people reading the article. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Scorpion episodes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sam Hill, Brushfire and One percenter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Criminal Minds - Season 11

You reverted my work on the Criminal Minds (season 11) page, and gave a bit of a condescending reason for doing so which was directed at me, so rather than passive-aggressively talking through edit summaries, I just wanted to let you know that you can, indeed, summarize an episode in your own words when it hasn't been aired yet. That is the purpose served by a Press Release. CBS often releases an pre-air synopsis of their shows' episodes, to serve as somewhat of a coming attraction for the viewers/fans. They've been doing this for years. I constructed that summary from the paraphrasing of a legitimate article from CBS, which was an early summary for the episode. I could easily put that summary back up, justifiably so, but I want to wait until they release their official synopsis which includes the entire episode cast, and an even more detailed summary than what I put. It is released usually a week before the episode airs. So that is how one can summarize an episode without the episode having aired. I wouldn't have corrected you but you came across as supremely confident that I was wrong. I'll keep the summary down but I just wanted you to know that you took it down for the wrong reason. Happy editing. Bef3481 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bef3481: So you're paraphrasing? That's also against COPYVIO. There's even a template to warn against that: {{Close paraphrasing}}. Alex|The|Whovian 04:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Actually, the policy to which you just referred does not apply to episode summaries as far as I know. It is encouraged to put the summaries in your own words, which is what I did. So I suppose paraphrase is not the right word to describe my summary, since although vague and ambiguous, the definition of paraphrasing implies that it is not in your own words. Poor choice of words on my part. I did not paraphrase; anyhow, I stand by what I said otherwise. I'll keep the summary down until the official press release is out from CBS the week before the premiere airs. I noticed how quickly you responded to try and undermine what I said. I'm saying this with all possible respect. I don't know who you are, but Wikipedia encourages us to cooperate. So, have a nice day. Bef3481 (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bef3481: That policy applies to the entirety of Wikipedia, no matter the content. Copyright violation policies adhere to the entire site. I'm also attempting to cooperate by remaining civil. If you had to look at a summary from another website, to be able to write your own summary based on what you read, that's the meaning of paraphrasing. Summaries in your own words are when you watch the episode itself, and summarize what you have seen yourself, without looking at any other primary or secondary material. This means that summaries from press releases are not to be added either. Alex|The|Whovian 04:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AlexTheWhovian: Well, this is news to me. By the way I appreciate your civility; I'm making the same effort. The creators of the season 9 and season 10 pages always let other editors input episode summaries - yes, based on press releases, but it had to be entirely in their own words - before the episode had aired. I have not violated any policy, but this is pointless now because I already said I'm leaving the summary down. When the time comes that the press release comes out around September 23, 2015, you'll have a lot of edits to revert since I'm guessing a few editors will want to put it in. Guess we will cross that bridge when we get to it, since many other experienced editors never said that it was against Wikipedia policy to enter an episode summary after the press release, but before the episode airs. Anyhow, there is no more reason to argue since I don't intend to put the summary back up, so have a nice night. Bef3481 (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For all the templates, and now the color script, you've created to help further progress the TV project and help us better maintain the articles in the project. Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thanks, Favre! It's been my pleasure helping out. Alex|The|Whovian 05:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Can you give me a quick example of how to implement the following instruction on that script you made: "Load the above into a new bookmarklet beginning with javascript:."? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Sure! Randomly Google something. Bookmark that page. Right click the bookmark and click Edit. Completely clear the URL section, and type "javascript:", then paste in the script code. Save. (And change the title.) Hope that helps! Alex|The|Whovian 23:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Okay. Will give it a shot. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't opening Snook for me for some reason. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Strange. (I've actually had a few articles - not many - with the same issue.) Is this for all pages? And are any errors appearing in your Javascript console log? (It's the F12 key to show it in Chrome, not sure about the others.) Alex|The|Whovian 06:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be all pages. Using Firefox. Will look for javascript console. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

How strange. Works now. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Accessibility Barnstar
		For your work on Template:Infobox television season and promoting accessibility on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thanks, Evergreen! :) Alex|The|Whovian 23:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion

In response to your reversion of my edit, summarized as "That's not how the MOS states cast gets ordered", I didn't claim to be ordering it in reference to anything that MOS states because all that MOS states about cast ordering (at least that I can find, and I invite you to correct this if it's mistaken) is: " "main" cast status is determined by the series producers", which doesn't have any bearing on my edit. The previous cast order was random and illogical. My re-ordering more closely reflects the characters' approximate order of appearance and/or importance to/prominence in the plot. I am therefore restoring my edit, as at the moment there seems to be no policy anywhere indicating that it was in error.--TyrS 15:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@TyrS: Hopefully my edit summary was more detailed this time: Cast get credited as per the order determined in the episode credits. Alex|The|Whovian 16:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Could you please direct me to the specific section of the MOS that says this? Also, are you/MOS referring to end credits or opening credits?--TyrS 17:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

p.s. the infobox claims to have the cast listed "in the order the actors are CREDITED by the show" (these are the opening credits; the end credits seem to be in order of appearance for each particular episode) which is a totally different order than the one you've reverted the article back to.--TyrS 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your second edit summary, which states "...The cast is listed as they're ordered in the series credits". The way the cast was listed at that time (in the body of the article, the bit I was editing) was actually not listed as ordered in the series credits.

Anyway, I have now fixed the pre-existing order so that it does reflect the policy (which is here MOS:TVCAST).--TyrS 02:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@TyrS: Apologies, I'd assumed that they were already ordered as they were credited, as there were multiple edits enforcing this a while ago. I hadn't noticed that someone has managed to slip through that. Thanks for your work! Alex|The|Whovian 13:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Why

Why did you delete useful info on agents of shield region 2 DVD release BENakaStig (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@BENakaStig: As per my edit summary: it was unsourced. Alex|The|Whovian 13:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been confirmed

@BENakaStig: You need to add a source with it. How are we to know where it's been confirmed? (And please sign your posts.) Alex|The|Whovian 13:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Screw this Wikipedia bollox

@BENakaStig: Seems you're unsuitable to edit if you cannot even follow the most simplest of guidelines. Alex|The|Whovian 13:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ye well I'm new to all this, I won't be editing anything again if sad people take it down within minutes — Preceding unsigned comment added by BENakaStig (talk • contribs) 14:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@BENakaStig: We take it down because you NEED TO SOURCE IT. Alex|The|Whovian 14:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Proof

Why did you revert my contribution to "Proof" ? It was the description right from my cable provider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randallg320 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Randallg320: (Somehow, I missed this post.) Exactly. It's straight from the cable provider, copy-pasted, meaning that it was a copyright violation. You can't copy content onto Wikipedia, in case it's a breach of copyright from the original site, meaning that you have to type the summary in your own words. Paraphrasing comes under this category as well - that is, reading the content on the original website and modifying a few words so that it's not exactly the same. Please read the policy WP:COPYVIO for further information. Alex|The|Whovian 04:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Color changing for the DVD cover artwork.

Hello, AlexTheWhovian. You probably don't know me, but allow me to introduce myself. My name is Jp113040, but my real name is John Perez. Listen, I've heard and noticing you've been changing unneccessary colors on random TV shows and season articles, and also on the series overviews. Now, I strongly recommend you to stop editing the colors, that might be a violation of edit warring, so please, I don't want any this bogus nonsense from you anymore, at all, and just a fair warning, that's all. So, please stop editing and changing random TV shows season colors article, or you will might be blocked from Wikipedia.

Jp113040 06:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 8/24/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp113040 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jp113040: Please inform yourself with the conversations at Template talk:Infobox television season#Colour, and the policy at WP:COLOR. All colours must be WCAG 2 AAA Compliant - the ones I changed were not. Alex|The|Whovian 07:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Third and final warning

Once again I remind you of this warning:

"Per WP:VANDAL: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."".

If you continue to issue bogus warnings in this manner, as you recenlty did on the talk page of User:Jp113040, it is you who may be blocked from editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: And it is you that should inform yourself, and if you do so, you would find that none of the edits performed by the editor in question were good-faith edits. You're using that policy incorrectly. Alex|The|Whovian 09:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to ask for a third opinion, at WP:AN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Dani's Castle (series 3)

Recently you have made edits to Dani's Castle (series 3) that are disruptive and detrimental to the page. This must stop now. Cast notes are included on most other List of x episodes and series/season pages. 5.68.18.121 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You have reverted an edit twice in 24 hours once more and you will be in violation of 3RR. 5.68.18.121 (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed it once then reverted twice. Please get your policies correct. You too will soon be in violation against the Method of Style for television series. Please read Template:Episode list#Parameters: A short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode. Make summaries specific to that episode (as in, a description that would normally not be confused with another episode). Episode summaries must not be copied from other sources, as this violates WP:COPYRIGHT. Further guidance on plot summaries may be found at WP:TVPLOT. Leaving this parameter empty will result in the summary row not appearing for this episode. Nothing about cast. Alex|The|Whovian 11:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, I was unaware of this. Cast notes need to be removed from many other episode lists. 5.68.18.121 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Problem is everyone's getting told different things which is why it's bloody confusing , I will say however for the most part it does seem most "Series articles" don't include guest stuff, I personally feel we ought to get some sort of RFC going on whether they should or shouldn't be included but hey ho lol, –Davey2010^Talk 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Supergirl

You seem to take an issue with my correction, returning the statement to something which is - sfaiaa - wrong. "Lucy Lane: The younger sister of Lois Lane and James' ex-girlfriend" states that Lucy is (a) the sister of Lois, *and* (b) the sister of James' ex. It doesn't state that Lucy *is* James' ex! (English grammar is fun, fsvo). I'll let you rv your rv. --AlisonW (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@AlisonW: Not reverted but there you go, better now. Alex|The|Whovian 15:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Series overview sandbox

Hey Alex. I was working in the sandbox and created a module for when a series has a special (see List of Sherlock episodes). Can you use your script to go through the live code and add it in? It goes after the split and is formatted (to start) as {{{special1_2}}} with each number then incremented 1 until you get the end. So next would be {{{special2_3}}} etc. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added the first few, so I could change the Sherlock LoE and make examples in the documentation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Top job with the specials variables! I've scripted the rest of them in. (I really need to implement this in Lua sometime, so it's not all so repetitive... One day.) I put in a {{{special0_1}}} right at the start too, for pilots that have aired a good deal before the first season (e.g. List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials). It might also need a slight expansion I also implemented an expansion for overviews such as that on List of Spartacus episodes and List of The X-Files episodes, where there's an entire special/prequel season. Alex|The|Whovian 09:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Narcos

Hello, I notice you undid the short summaries I added on the page. I've just tried to add more information since the Narcos page is still quite basic. I'm new on Wikipedia, and I'd like to know what was wrong with the text. Cheers --Fabiumas (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fabiumas: In that case, welcome to Wikipedia! Episode summaries are not allowed to be copy-pasted from other sites (though this wasn't the case here), nor are you allowed to find summaries on other sites an modify a few words and submit it (this is paraphrasing) - summaries must be made from scratch from your own watching experience. Alex|The|Whovian 00:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)