User talk:Alex 21/Archive 7

Mr Robot

I'm written to a few people who have contributed to the discussion on Mr Robot in the past in the hope of getting more opinions on my proposed edit. If you either support or oppose, or have other suggestions, please feel free to contribute here. Hzh (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Dark Matter TV Series

Sorry, I tried to move it, not remove it, and was in the process of restoring it but you beat me to the punch. I'm currently crippled by working from only my phone. Durty Willy (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Plots

Please see WP:TVPLOT "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words." Therefore, please only remove {{plot}} if it is shorter than 500 words. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I applaud your removal of the unfounded {{plot}} template and have followed suit. For my trouble I, too, have received the above message from Redrose64. You might think they would be more concerned with a new editor who has taken it upon themselves to add this template to a number of long-standing articles, without providing edit summaries and with little or no attempt to correct the problem they imagine to be present. Anyway, I have responded to Redrose64 on their Talk Page here, if you are interested. 86.174.107.13 (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well said. I even picked up a few policies I was unaware of from your response. I've noticed that Redrose64 has declined to comment. Alex|The|Whovian 08:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I was in bed? It's now 11:19 here in England. You might not have noticed, but I also sent messages to the people that you were reverting and who were reverting you - User talk:70.209.27.102 and User talk:BlackGator. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the posts to multiple useres, and how you commented to other posts on your talk page after the IP user's post, yes. Alex|The|Whovian 10:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion here

Hi there. Please kindly participate in the discussion at the talk page of The Flash article before reverting my addition. Thank you. 93.135.14.96 (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Gain consensus before reinstating, and check the article's history. Alex|The|Whovian 10:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You did not "gain consensus" yourself when you removed the Episode headline with this edit. 93.135.14.96 (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The consensus has been long-established by editors long before you came and disrupted the article with your edits. Alex|The|Whovian 10:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not true. There was NO consensus & NO discussion when one editor in June 2015 barged into the article and single-handedly decided to hide the Episode headline. by the way, as you know, removal of a template = having red the message of the template.

And they weren't reverted. Hence, unspoken consensus between editors to keep it as it is. Take a look at this as well, yeah? (And I've been editing Wiki for long enough, I don't need to read it to know what a template says.) And please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. Alex|The|Whovian 11:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Imagine this ineffective edit of hiding the Episode headline from the TOC. I came to this article to inform myself of the current episode of the Flash only to find my time getting wasted by some Editor who, without establishing ANY consensus, in June 2015 decided to hide the episode headline. Almost ALL other TV series articles have the Episode headline in the TOC. Those that don't have been tampered with by the same editor who removed the Episode headline from the TOC. If you or anyone else should continue to hide the Episode headline from the TOC, you will be reported to the Administrator's board. 93.135.14.96 (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself, buddy. There's a link for the episode in the infobox to the right of the article, so your argument is pointless. If you continue edit warring, you'll be warned and blocked/banned. One only needs to read my archives to see that I've reported plenty of you "ownership" types. Alex|The|Whovian 11:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this right, though. You consider "consensus" as forcing your way in and forcing your edits, compared to "no consensus" as multiple and many editors having no issue with how it is? Interesting. Alex|The|Whovian 11:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

So you're editing in Wikipedia for long enough? Brilliant! Then you should be able to provide a Wikipedia policy or guideline which allows you to hide the Episode headline from the TOC. Any other thing is simply an attempt trying to push your preferred version unto an article. Consensus can be established via silence from other Editors, very true. Yet, at any time any editor, including IP editors, can appear and challenge that "silent" consensus via bold editing. And btw, you have not addressed my main & major concern, which is the fact that the episode headline is not only relocated "elsewhere", it no longer appears on the TOC. Lastly, your "I'm the big mighty Wikipedia-Editor, check me talk page archive" doesn't scare me. Thank you.

Policy? Sure! Quoting another user on the same topic: Per WP:PARAGRAPH, sections should contain prose. Per WP:PROPERSPLIT, you create a summary of what you're splitting. A section that says "Episodes" and sends you away from the page is not prose, nor does it contain a summary. There needs to be a summary, given that we have one with the "Premise". And again, do sign your posts. Not that hard, buddy. I also see you're quoting WP:BRD with your "bold" editing. I also see how you forgot about the "R" part - revert. Alex|The|Whovian 11:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Premises has nothing whatsoever to do with Episodes. So to place the Episode headline underneath the premise headline doens't make any sense. Why do you want to hide the Episode headline in a section where noone will look for it? Btw, 2 min pls, I'm looking at your guideline links. 93.135.14.96 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You've now been reverted by another editor. Revert them, and you're up for edit-warring! As I've already told you, the link for the episode page is already in the infobox, so technically, it's not really even needed in the article. Alex|The|Whovian 11:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously sending me to a user-generated essay? Both links which you've provided do not in any place provided any guideline which allows you to hide the Episode headline from the TOC.Again, pls provide a Wikipedia guideline or policy (not essay) to support your removal of the Episode headline. 93.135.14.96 (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Already done that. It's your choice if you accept it or not, and if you don't, that's your fault for not "liking" the way the site is run. The TOC reflects the article's content, and if the policies apply to the content, they apply to the TOC. Alex|The|Whovian 11:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

So, your final reply is that after I kindly asked you to provide a Wikipedia Policy or Guideline you gave a link to a non-policy and non-guideline ESSAY, and a link to an information page, which has nothing to do with what I requested for. This clearly suggests, that you do not have any Wikipedia policy or guideline to support your removal of the pisode headline from the TOC. Wikipedia has hundreds of TV series articles, and all of them, with the exceptions of those you & your friends tampered with, have the Episode headline visible in the TOC. If you want the episode headline removed from the TOC, you must establish consensus for that.93.135.14.96 (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You beg for policy, but you break policy by reverting not three (as 3RR dictates), not four, but five times. SIX, if you include the initial edit. Shows how much respect for policy you have. And this whole June thing? That's when a new separate article was created, given that a Season 2 table was being created! Give me "policy" that REQUIRES the "Episodes" header to be present. Alex|The|Whovian 11:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edits and your reverts concering the Episode headline are not supported by any Wikipedia Guidelines or Policies, or else you would have pointed to them. This is the final result of YOUR edits. Forget about mine, let me worry about my edits. You have admitted to not have any support from Wikipedia guidelines and policies in your removal of the well-establised Episode headline from the TOC. That's all that matters. Please refrain from removing and hiding the Episode headline from the TOC. Thank you very much. 93.135.14.96 (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Forget about my edits, let me worry about my edits. I could use that here too. You've provided no guideline or policy that requires an Episode subsection to be present either. ALL of your arguments apply to your very same edits as well. Alex|The|Whovian 11:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to report me to any Administrator's board over any alleged war editing. I will meet you on that board. The bottom line remain: removing the Episode headline from the TOC is a waste of time for Wikipedia readers, and is in direct opposition to what hundreds of other TV series articles have in their TOC. Thank you. 93.135.14.96 (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Alleged? You've reverted six times (seven, including the initial). That's FAR from alleged. And another policy: simply because other articles do it, doesn't make it right. Alex|The|Whovian 11:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

iZombie season 2 order

Please stop reverting edits regarding iZombie's season 2 order. The line in the original TVLine source you quoted, "this brings iZombie‘s Season 2 episode total to 18", was an inaccurate oversimplification. Backup script orders do not guarantee the production of more episodes; it merely indicates that the network has some interest in ordering more episodes. They can go either way, usually depending on the network's confidence in the creative team's direction. The Deadline source I used clarifies this by stating that the move is only a "confidence booster" towards obtaining a full-season order, and that currently, "Rob Thomas’ zom-dram-rom-com iZombie starring Rose McIver has a 13-episode Season 2 order". That is to say, until the network orders more episodes, the season order will remain at 13. Soren121 (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

They've ordered actual scripts, not backup scripts. Simply because you disagree with a source, doesn't automatically make it wrong. But to prevent edit-warring, I'll leave it how it is. Alex|The|Whovian 13:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

A script order and a backup script order are just different names for the same thing. The issue is not that I simply disagree with the source, it's that a different primary source (Deadline) gives different information regarding what iZombie's production order is. Since TVLine's article contradicts the definition of a script order, and Deadline does not, I'm inclined to agree with Deadline's article. (Also, my apologies if I've come off as rude-- I'm just trying to explain my case.) Soren121 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Doctor Who The Christmas Specials.png

Thank you for uploading File:Doctor Who The Christmas Specials.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: I have now moved the image from the top of the article, to the subsection specifically entitled "Home media release", which is what the image represents. Alex|The|Whovian 03:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr Robot - closure

Given that there has been no more contribution for a week at Talk:Mr. Robot#Proposed edit, and there are enough contribution from 3 editors (Dark Cocoa Frosting, Jordan 1972 and me) to make a compromise edit (which I did make). Drmargi has refused to contribute apart from vague observations, and my compromised edit included what she wanted except worded differently. At the moment she is reverting all edits, including the compromise edits and even those that are not in dispute. I would appreciate a closure of the discussion by someone who is not involved so that the whole thing not get bog down, making all positive contributions impossible. Hzh (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Accusing me of being a sockpuppet

Please investigate the possibility that I may be a sockpuppet before making blind accusations. And there's no need to delete comments I made that questioned your accusation of me being a sockpuppet. Thanks. 37.203.144.83 (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Barely an accusation, just a stray (and obvious) observation. Can't really be bothered if it's on the talk pages. Alex|The|Whovian 20:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I take offense to the "obvious" possibility that I may be a sockpuppet, but if you won't let me make my case on the matter then I'll end the discussion here. It's only Wikipedia after all, there's always TV Tropes that I can edit instead. 37.203.144.83 (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Up to you. The timing is obvious enough. Alex|The|Whovian 20:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet 37.203.144.83 (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted your sentences

Sorry for removing your paragraph on the Before the Flood page, I shouldn't have gotten rid of the whole thing but the ordinal numbers were confusing and the episode was set in 2119 and 1980, sorry again! Your commitment to Doctor Who on Wikipedia is admirable, keep it up!! ~ Brumous (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sense8 (season 1)

The series is melodramatic and complex. MOS:TV#Episode listing normally encourages 100-200 words of brief summary. However, complex storylines may be told with up to 350 words. Get it? --George Ho (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Series overview help

I've been trying to convert the series overview table at List of The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack episodes with little success. While everything else is fine, I can't get the correct season numbers. Can you please check it out? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey AussieLegend. So the following is the code you need. However, since you have 2 "extras" before the first season, the template is currently not coded to handle that, so with the code I'm giving you, the order is "Shorts" "Season 1" "Pilot" and then "Seasons 2-3". That may be something to address. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Code

{{Series overview | extra0 = {{Series overview/special | color = #000 | link = <includeonly>List of The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack episodes</includeonly>#Shorts (2007–08) | episodes = 5 | linkT = Shorts | start = {{start date|2007|7|27}} | end = {{end date|2007|8|24}} }} {{Series overview/special | color = #808080 | link = <includeonly>List of The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack episodes</includeonly>#Pilot and "Captain and ToeNeil" | episodes = 1 <small>(2 segments)</small> | linkT = Pilot | start = {{start date|2007|5|7}} }} | color1 = #991f1f | link1 = <includeonly>List of The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack episodes</includeonly>#Season 1 (2008–09) | episodes1 = 20 <small>(40 segments)</small> | start1 = {{start date|2008|6|5}} | end1 = {{end date|2009|7|23}} | color2 = #cc2929 | link2 = <includeonly>List of The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack episodes</includeonly>#Season 2 (2009–10) | episodes2 = 20 <small>(36 segments)</small> | start2 = {{start date|2009|7|30}} | end2 = {{end date|2010|6|21}} | color3 = #cca37a | link3 = <includeonly>List of The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack episodes</includeonly>#Season 3 (2010) | episodes3 = 6 <small>(12 segments)</small> | start3 = {{start date|2010|07|05}} | end3 = {{end date|2010|08|30}} }}

Sure it handles it. You just place the two {{Series overview/special}}'s one after the other in the "extra0" parameter, much like how we can place infinite {{Episode list}}'s in the "episodes" parameter in {{Episode table}}. I've modified the code - you'll find exactly what you're looking for there. Alex|The|Whovian 22:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It turns out I was close. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No problems! Alex|The|Whovian 05:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, guys. Just a quick follow-up here, as the dust seems to have long since settled . . . were you able to resolve all of the color-contrast issues with this and related templates and tables? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at my user page for that. Alex|The|Whovian 05:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Good to see those empty maintenance categories linked on your user page, Alex. You, Aussie and the rest of the WP:TV crew deserve a lot of credit for resolving the color-contrast issues in timely fashion. That said, I very much regret the unnecessary rhetoric that preceded the real work; it was a problem to be solved, not a war to be waged, and the demands for instant resolution were a little misplaced. I hope I helped, at least in a small way, to get things back on track. I look forward to crossing paths with you under happier circumstances in the future. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Grants:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Prevention from discussing TBBT Episodes page?

Alex: I quite agree—the Big Bang Theory Episodes Talk page isn't a forum. And indeed, if a Running Time column were added to the article, as I suggested, it wouldn't be necessary to editorialize; readers could see for themselves how the show has been methodically shortened as it's become more popular. However, I didn't know if my suggestion would be taken seriously unless I explained why I considered it worthwhile. ¶ Doesn't WP encourage discussion between active editors? If you didn't like my behind-the-scenes post, wouldn't a more appropriate response have been to reply to it, rather than taking it upon yourself to "revert" (delete) it? This would also have let others express their opinions. You know, the whole democracy vs. despotism thing? – AndyFielding (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your posts was primarily about what broadcasters are doing, how they cram in more and more ads, and puts pressure on the writers. This is definitely a more forum-like post, which also consists entirely of original research and your personal view on the content, hence the removal. If you were serious about adding an extra column for run time, I suggest doing it in a more editor-like fashion (though I don't see there being much support behind the idea, given the fact that no other series includes such data in their episode table, and if it were truly required, there would be a dedicated variable for it in {{Episode list}}). Alex|The|Whovian 09:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 3) and Doctor Who (series 9)

Hi AlexTheWhovian, I don't think the colour of DW Series 3 really matches the DVD image, but I don't know what colour it should be. Series 9 colour should probably be charcoal grey, but I don't think the image is right (what happened to the one were they were running away from explosion? I think this is the correct image). What do you think? Cheers, --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Series 3's colour somewhat reflects the colour of the circular grid behind the Doctor and the Master, though could possibly be changed to a brown or lighter colour (yellow-ish)? And Series 9 is reflecting the use of colour from Series 8 by having its colour as the colour of the text on the DVD colour. The cover for Series 9 was updated by the BBC, meaning that the running/explosion cover would be outdated and no longer the current DVD cover. Alex|The|Whovian 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought the Series 8 colour was because of the red lining of his coat as well as the text. Thanks for explaining the cover situation in Series 9, also Clara's costume is yellow too so it works both ways. As for Series 3 I can't think of a colour suitable that wouldn't be too close to the 2008–2010 specials, I think the best thing to do is to work out which colour/colours are most featured or stand out the most in the image and use that. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: What would you say to #1F0C08 or #493A28? Alex|The|Whovian 01:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think #493A28 works better, it matches the grid perfectly, I'd use that one. Also the navy blue colour of Series 1 doesn't match the worn blue colour of the TARDIS the way the other Series colours do. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

TV Shows I Watch

Damn dude, that's a lot of different TV Shows, LOL !!!

Just saw that subsection of your userpage and had a chuckle, heheh.

By the way, awesome username.

Bow ties are cool.

— Cirt (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Heh, thanks. That's an old list, I actually need to cut some and update it. And thanks for reviewing the article I nominated as a GA! Alex|The|Whovian 04:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure, I'm going to look it over and it'll probably be several hours before I get to posting the actual review write-up. Good luck with it, — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forever (U.S. TV series)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forever (U.S. TV series) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forever (U.S. TV series)

The article Forever (U.S. TV series) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Forever (U.S. TV series) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

See alsos

Hi Alex, re: [1], I noticed that you've reverted a few of this user's See also sections. I've left him a few notes on his talk page, since he seems to be missing the mark with his edits. Just an FYI, or more aptly, an IYC (if you care). :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: No problems. :) I would have posted on his talk page about it myself, but it was two in the morning for me at the time. Alex|The|Whovian 01:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You work hard. Fuhgeddaboudit! :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please use an edit summary so other editors know why you are reverting their edits.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: The edit that required this notification was ...? Alex|The|Whovian 12:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, AlexTheWhovian,

I was noticed one revert you did and when I looked at the edit history for Doctor Who (series 9), it seemed like you had done a number of reversions without letting the editor know why. Please know that I don't view an Edit Summary notice as a warning but just a reminder. I know you are a very active editor, especially on articles involving Doctor Who which is a very popular subject on Wikipedia. If you revert an editor, it would be helpful for them to know why so they do not make a similar mistake in the future. I hope this clarifies the situation for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Arrow summary

Hi Alex,

Why did you recently revert my split of a paragraph covering both seasons 3 and 4 into two paragraphs? The structure of that section seemed to be one paragraph per season and my edit was made to maintain that structure. What am I missing?

thanks, Contributor tom (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Contributor tom: Please check the article's history for similar reverts by multiple edits. Policy dictates that we don't have one-line paragraphs, and we separate it into its own paragraph once there is more detail. Alex|The|Whovian 11:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I've edited the paragraph to be two sentences, breaking a long, run-on sentence into two different ones. Contributor tom (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Contributor tom: There is still not enough content yet to warrant its own paragraph. Alex|The|Whovian 11:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Fair enough. However, the long run-on sentence should be broken into two sentences. Please don't casually revert all of a user's edits just because you disagree with one of them. Thanks.Contributor tom (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Contributor tom: I'll wait for another user to revert you, I'm not going to edit war like yourself. As I said before: Check the article's history for at least a dozen reverts of the same kind by multiple users. I'm not "casually" reverting you, as you claim. (BTW, no need to ping me on my own talk page.) Alex|The|Whovian 11:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I have not engaged in any "edit war". I *agreed* with your last point and confined my last edit to just the run-off sentence. Please get your facts straight before making accusations. It is exactly this casual disregard of other users' actions that makes your reverts feel arbitrary. I'm not alone in this impression (see Liz above). Please remember that editing the wikipedia is a collaborative activity; you don't "own" any pages, despite all the hard work that you do on several of them. Thanks. Contributor tom (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Contributor tom: I repeat, no need to ping me on my own talk page, bud. And the above was because I didn't add a summary - do not use discussions that do not relate to you or the current conversation to incorrectly support your own. Nobody is owning any pages here, so your accusations are false. This is over now. Alex|The|Whovian 02:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who (season 19) colour

Hi AlexTheWhovian, I've been looking at Doctor Who seasons/series and noticed the green colour of season 19 isn't compliant for white or black on Colour Contrast Check, do you want me to change to lighter green? --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: It is compliant... Alex|The|Whovian 02:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but it says "Are colours compliant?" "NO", I though the most you could get away with was "sort of." Also, off-topic, do you know the name of the current official boss of the Genovese crime family? --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: Technically, all that matters is that the "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" says "YES", and the Contrast Ratio is over 7. And no idea. Alex|The|Whovian 00:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Although I did check on that color contrast site, so I thought they met the requirements. Interestingly enough, your changes don't make them look too different. Amaury (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Amaury: No problems. Some of them were only fractionally different, but it makes all the difference to those with colour accessibility issues. I just noticed when they were tagged under the links on my main user page. Alex|The|Whovian 01:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Amazing how so little can make a big different. :)

While I have you, perhaps you can be of assistance. On List of Lab Rats episodes, I just noticed that when I updated the table parameters from that other outdated table code—the one with "scope," etc.—the table contents for the fourth season are no longer showing, though the heading is. I've done this on a few other articles, so I think I just made a slip-up somewhere, but I can't find where. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Amaury: You forgot the equals sign. ;) Just as you do background = #8F2F8F, you need to do episodes = ... for the uses of the {{Episode list}} template. Alex|The|Whovian 02:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I must have accidentally erased it after copying and pasting. Amaury (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Godfather character infobox

Hi Alex, could we have a black infobox with white text for characters from The Godfather novel/films? I think this would be better than the plain character box. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It can be easily done by adding | color = black to the usage of {{Infobox character}}. Alex|The|Whovian 05:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing Felicity from Arrow episode descriptions

Can you tell me why you keep deleting Felicity from episode descriptions? She's a main character in the show and she has not been mentioned once in any of the season 4 descriptions. Oliver and Felicity living in Ivy Town was an important part/plot of 401, and Felicity becoming CEO of Palmer Tech was a major part of the storyline in 402. So it is important and should be there.Afan81 (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Afan81: You've received multiple reasons for the reverts in the article's history. Read them. Alex|The|Whovian 14:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Where do I read them? I'm new at this. Afan81 (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Afan81: Click the "View history" tab when you're reading the article; top right, near the "Edit source" tab. And you can begin a discussion on the article's talk page (just like you've done here) by clicking the "Talk" tab at the top left of the page. Alex|The|Whovian 14:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Afan81: The edit summaries are all here. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Defiance season 3

I'm so sorry about my edit summary. I thought you were the same person who keeps adding in false main characters. I was trying to fix the main cast section after somebody put Baby Jake as a series regular. Again, I wasn't like calling you out, I was stopping a couple jerks from adding vandalism to the page.S hannon434 (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@S hannon434: No problems! And yeah, he's probably not a regular as such, more guest or recurring. A shame the series was cancelled. Alex|The|Whovian 22:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Continuum Season 4 Promotional.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Continuum Season 4 Promotional.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of The Librarians episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ariel. 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) 10:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Article splitting

You should probably have a quick look at WP:PROSPLIT and WP:PATT for the proper attribution when splitting off season or episode list pages.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dark Cocoa Frosting: Given that you're talking about the splitting of episode tables to separate pages from the main series' page, then this is almost always typically done once a second season table has been/can be created. Alex|The|Whovian 11:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but not my point. Have a look at WP:PROSPLIT and WP:PATT for the proper attribution when splitting.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dark Cocoa Frosting: Those are some large pages. Is there a part in particular that you're wanting me to look at? Alex|The|Whovian 11:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The WP links should go to specific short sections, of course. Sorry if that did not work. Here they are in full wikilinks: Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure and Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So... I need to provide links in the edit summary when splitting? I'm being linked to these pages without explanation as to why, so I'm completely unaware of what I'm (apparently) not doing correctly. Alex|The|Whovian 11:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Quoting verbatim from those sections:

• the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from [[article name]]". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.)
• A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to [[article name]]".
• It is a requirement of Wikipedia's licensing that attribution be given to the main content author(s). The {{Copied}} template can be placed on the talk page of both articles for this purpose.

Specifically, for 12 Monkeys (TV series) and The Librarians (2014 TV series), no edit summary link both the main and the list article, and no talk page attribution on either talk page. I don't want to just complain, so I'll help with the talk pages.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time episode count

Hi, I think your civility notice you just posted is unnecessary, if it was meant toward me. You have seen, first hand, the undying relentlessness of this editor, they hardly deserve respect at this point. Yea, I did not disparage the individual, but rather the action. However, I have edited my wording to a less acerbic jab, but the fact remains that this disruptive activity is out of hand. LLArrow (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@LLArrow: I agree about the editor, and see this new discussion of theirs going nowhere, as a solid consensus has already been built. However, from past experience, I know that a civil tone is always needed, even (and especially) when I find an editor annoying or disruptive. Alex|The|Whovian

Wise words, but a bit of fiery dialogue is the only way to get across to certain editors. LLArrow (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)