User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

The Middle

These things happened on the show though, so they’ve been confirmed and the bit about Halloween VI involving Cindy should have detailed that without question. Futuremoviewriter (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Futuremoviewriter: I'm afraid that's not at all correct. "Halloween VI: Tick Tock Death" was a series of Halloween stories and the relevant one was best summed up by Mike Heck when he says "Don't make too much out of what happened tonight Brick. There's a lot of weird coincidences in the world. You can't overthink it." Even Brick's narration suggests it might just be "the fevered imaginings of a boy hopped up on too much candy". It does not in any way confirm that the old woman encountered was actually Brick's Cindy or that her husband was a time-travelling Brick. "Cynthia 'Cindy' Violet Heck" is a name that was never used in the program and the fact that Brick was shown wearing a wedding ring in the finale does not "reaffirm what Season 7’s "Halloween VI: Tick Tock Death" confirmed: he and Cindy are married in the future with four kids." You can't combine sources to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. To do that is original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

His book/series is about time travel, so it ties back into it. There's never really anything that dispels it as just being in his head and not real. Also, Brick said Cindy's full name in "Great Heckspectations": Cynthia Violet Hornberger. Futuremoviewriter (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be dispelled, it needs to be supported by citations from reliable sources otherwise it's still WP:SYNTH. As for the name, that requires a citation as well. In any case, when listing characters we use the name they are commonly referred to by. Articles are written for all readers, not just fans of a program who know all the intimate details. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Will you accept clips of the specific scenes as citations? Futuremoviewriter (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: Steven0306

Based on their recent edits today and ignoring talk page messages, I'm sensing some WP:CIR issues here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've warned him again and left a note on his talk page but I suspect the next action will require something at WP:ANI. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Tanked

Hello, I don't understand the last reverse on Tanked. It's the subject of the episode, as indicated on the AnimalPlanet page, and as such, I don't see how it would be seen as a © infrigement... Anyhow, if that's the case, you must also delete all the other short summaries I added, because I all took them from their web page. Or just adding quotes around the summaries would be sufficient ? I'll admit I'm quite lost here, as it would seem that it enters the realm of the fair citation use, it's only a phrase... Dunno. Not a lawyer, not even an english first tonger, so I'll leave the decisions in your hands. -- Arnaud

The episode summaries from the latest season as they all appear to have been copied directly from Animal Planet's website, which makes them copyright violations. Summaries should be written in your own words, which is the case with summaries from other seasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, good luck with the summaries then. -- Arnaud —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Template request

Hi, you look like a pretty active admin so I'm wondering if you can take a look at this.

My goal is to change "all edits by them should be reverted on sight..." to "this user has been banned so edits by them may be reverted on sight..." in order to clarify that this is not how we deal with non-banned connected users. An admin helped out two months ago (by changing "should" to "may") but even this change will have to be made in more places. Thanks! Connor Behan (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk

I have removed some broken links, to suburbs that do not have a dedicated Wikipedia page C A T (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please don't. Per WP:REDDEAL, "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." This edit replaced a link to the NSW article for Swan Bay with a link for Swan Bay in Victoria, which was not helpful at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That was a mistake, i tried to fix it but you stopped me. I have a person which is a staff of the council. Do you want to talk to her? (She could help with whatnot) C A T (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but C A T was showing me how to fix broken links. Noted your feedback. On another note, will you be updating the census data for 2016? Thanks & new to this CorinnePatersonPSC (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Another question, why do you include in the references at the bottom of the page really old website links from our website that has been archived many many years ago e.g. reference 2 you have https://web.archive.org/web/20080719063619/http://www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au/about.html. If you need help to source the new website equivalent page, I am happy to help you. Appreciate you doing what you are doing BTW. CorinnePatersonPSC (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

My edits

Hey there! You said I could leave a message on your talk page. Not wanting to step on anyones toes or be violating rules however changed the copy back to original as what you altered and edited it to doesn't align with the show's story and misconstrues a few characters and points. Our brief wasn't copy and paste and isn't on the show's website or anything like that, it has been worded accordingly for wikipedia so we'd like if you could please leave and keep as is. Understand and respect yourself, time and wikipedia however, incorrect synopsis isn't right either. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVeditor7 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@TVeditor7: You can't just upload a file to commons and give it a license that you like to make it free. The license has to be supplied by the copyright owner, which isn't you, and there is no evidence at all that the copyright owner has released File:Counter Play title.jpg under that license. Plots should be a summary of events and should not be written as teasers, which is exactly what you have done. For that reason I have reverted again. By all means, reword it but not as a teaser and make sure you don't copy it from somewhere else. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Understand and appreciate your response. How can I go about getting the permission to upload the pic to show you? And that's fine regarding copy. I have left as you reverted it back to except for one line about the girlfriend and the graduation. But I see what you mean. No copying and pasting ever. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVeditor7 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

SUPER READERS

TO THE RESCUE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuackityHQReal (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE to me... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Australian flag at war

Is there any reason why there can't be at least some imagery in this section on the Flag of Australia article?

Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Images don't need to go in every section. Some articles don't need images at all, but where they are required they should provide encyclopaedic value and not simply be decorative as most of the ones that you added were. The HMCS Protector image is an example of a decorative image. You can barely see the flag and it doesn't need an image to confirm that it flew the flag. Other images were similarly of little value. Also, as I inicated, galleries are discouraged and the format that you are using is not how we add galleries. Please learn how to do things properly. Reading the Manual of Style will help you with that. It's also one reason why HiLo48 directed you to look at other articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads) rename Motorway (Brisbane–Ballina)

I tried to put in a change request and it was removed. I am still trying to be come familiar with the rules of where to edit stuff. The motorway has been extended to Ballina a couple of years ago and it is named Pacific Motorway in google maps. It is designated M1 on the road signage as well. Iainturville1 (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Quite simply, the article won't be moved because it's at the location that it should be according to our policies and guidelines. Back in 2016 you copied and pasted Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads) to Pacific Motorway (Brisbane-Ballina) which is an ianppropriate way to move an article. Then, in 2017 you proposed that Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads) be moved to Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Ballina). Had you followed or participated in the subsequent discussion you would have seen that proposal failed because "Roadways are named by their current public official name as listed in the appropriate government gazette [preferred], or as otherwise used for general administrative purposes, and not their common name, or their internal name according to the relevant government department." This is per our naming convention for Australian roads. The road name was last gazetted in 2013, with the northern endpoint then set as Brunswick Heads.[1] Since then there have been no official changes and until there are Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads) is the correct name for the article. There is little point coming back each year and proposing a name change until then. To do so can be seen as disruptive. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Where can I find the official documentation that the Pacific Motorway is gazetted between Brisbane to the southern turn off at Brunswick Heads. If there is no document online who can I contact to get hold of the main roads gazette and possibly make a request to get the section between Brunswick Heads to Ballina renamed to Pacific Motorway. Probably be pointless as the motorway will be extended to Coffs Harbour in 2020 and to Newcastle in 2023. Iainturville1 (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I provided a link to the February 2013 edition of the NSW Gazette that shows the gazettal of the Brunswick Heads-Qld Border section as the M1 Pacific Motorway above. That includes contact details. The NSW government is not going to rename the road based on the request of an individual. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

sock with caps

? [2] JarrahTree 11:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it. I expect that, rather than ask for a username change, ABSstats just created another account. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Check out this. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank heavens for lerts we need more JarrahTree 00:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Glenworth Valley

Aussie Legend can we talk abut Glenworth Valley/Popran valley? Many thanks. Ad lsm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad lsm (talk • contribs) 06:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC) Aussie Legend can we talk abut Glenworth Valley/Popran valley? Many thanks. Ad lsm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad lsm (talk • contribs) 06:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend thanks so much for your help on the Popran Valley site. Not sure whether you have visited the Valley but noted your interest in the Hunter Region and hoping you can help on this. The Popran has a fascinating history - both indigenous and European including the convict connection through the Kelly family.

So: are you able to give me a hand on this site? Any advice much appreciated. Ad lsm. Ad lsm (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox request

Hello! Thank you for all of your editing. I was hoping you could add 2 categories to the Infoboxes on television and movies? Thought of doing it myself but I don't want to ruin everyone's hard work. I'm requesting that below or above Cinematography - we add ...

Production Design

Costume Design

Both are important elements to the overall look of the show or movie. A lot of production and costume designers have extensive wiki pages, so it would be great to include everyone on the Project page infobox.

If you're able to help with that, thank you so much on behalf of the entire creative teams in production! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashinga (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to seek consensus for this change at the infobox's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Heritage

Hey, if you're going to refactor the heritage section I'm adding, like here, can you not remove the links? I'm not bothered if you want to reword or reorganise stuff, but the whole point of adding these is so the articles I'm imminently creating aren't orphans, so de-linking and adding possibly-unnecessary content to the town article is unhelpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: In that particular case, the link Tomago House and Chapel is useless and will never likely exist as a single article. While they are listed on the register as one item they are actually two different things. Tomago House itself is well known but there is very little at the house that even mentions the chapel, which is not even on the same block of land. You can't even see the chapel from the house. The house iswas open to the public but the chapel is now behind a locked gate down the main road. You have to leave Tomago House, drive 450m down the road and park on the side of the road where you can see the chapel in the distance, but can't get to it without trespassing. There is never going to be an article on the chapel itself. It's simply not notable enough. If anything it would be mentioned in Tomago House if that were ever created, as the chapel itself was built as part of Tomago House, just as "The Temple" at Tanilba was built as part of Tomago House. The changes that I made were all based on intimate, long-term local knowledge of the area. Your reversion of the changes is, at best unconstructive because it removed quite valid information. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I literally just said that the links were being added because the article was about to be imminently created. "Useless and will never likely exist as a single article" is an impressive prediction when that article will exist in about five minutes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm totally willing to defer to local knowledge about, for example, the framing of these articles - it would be silly not to. Alternatively, you could passive-aggressively remove links to articles I'm about to create, and I could undo the removals. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please let me first clarify something that I wrote, incorrectly as it were, earlier. At the time I was rather angry at you completely reverting valid changes just to restore what is, truthfully, a bad link.[3] I see that you now have done it again.[4] That is bordering on vandalism. You could have simply recreated a link to your badly named article instead of reverting everything. If you want to continually do this I'm happy to take it further. I'd prefer to try BRD first but that will require reversion to the statusquo, per WP:STATUSQUO. Please let me know if you want to go that way. Note that the register that you are using lists Tomago House and the nearby chapel as "Tomago House & Tomago Chapel", not as "Tomago House and Chapel". They are not at all known as that so creating an article at Tomago House and Chapel is unhelpful to readers. The correct location for the article is Tomago House as that is what the main site is publicly known as. That you have created the article doesn't mean it is a valid location. The chapel was built originally as part of the house, not as a separate entity and it is known as that. The National Trust, which manages the site, also identifies the two as "Tomago House" and "Tomago House Chapel". I will be uploading some images shortly that will support this.

I'm totally willing to defer to local knowledge - I'm finding that hard to believe given that you seem to be ignoring everything that I say.

Alternatively, you could passive-aggressively remove links - People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I made quite valid chages and, instead of just restoring your link you completely reverted everything. Even here you've ignored the clarification that I made of the location of the site and the distances, even reverting the heading change without any explanation of why you think those are unhelpful. So please, criticise me when you have done nothing wrong. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Tomago House because you make a reasonable point. It is very frustrating however when you remove links to articles about to be created and partially and unnecessarily duplicate those articles in the town articles, as opposed to changing the links (which would actually be appreciated so I can create them at a better title). The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the edit histories you will see that I originally made the changes to multiple articles between 1:24 and 2:00 am this morning. You created the articles many hours later and could have easily just recreated the links. As you see now, Tomago House and Chapel was a poor choice so my changes were all quite valid.

and partially and unnecessarily duplicate those articles in the town articles I never did that. The articles didn't exist when I made the changes.

I see you've now created Dunmore Bridge over the Paterson River which is another poor title. The bridge is the Dunmore Bridge. "over the Paterson River" is not part of it's name. It's just the way it is listed in the register. AND, you've completely reverted my edits to Woodville just to restore your link, again removing all the valid changes that I made.[5] Do you not think that seeing that sort of unhelpful edit is not frustrating? You need to respect edits made by others. Please do not create Tanilba House and The Temple. As was the case with Tomago House, "The Temple" was built as part of Tanilba House. It's much like having a gazebo in your back yard however, unlike the chapel at Tomago, The Temple is on publicly accessible land while Tomago House is privately owned. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The move to Dunmore Bridge is completely fine - I frequently change titles if there's a better name for it that I'm aware of, and if I'm not there's no issue with anyone else moving them to better titles. You did partially and unnecessarily duplicate the content you knew I was about to create - and that's really frustrating, because it pointlessly makes this task harder. This is why I reverted the content - there's no compelling need for a duplicate section in the town article just because you felt like removing the links I'd added. I'm not going to create Tanilba House at all - the SHR material isn't good and while I'd normally write an article from scratch in that case, I can't be bothered arguing about it and it's easier to move on. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You did partially and unnecessarily duplicate the content you knew I was about to create - Again, look at the article edit histories. I created the content prior to 2AM today. You created Tomago House and Chapel at 2:21 PM, over 12 hours after me, and Dunmore Bridge over the Paterson River 22 minutes after that, so I don't see how I could possibly have duplicated content that didn't exist when I created it. I don't see anything in the articles that you created about Tomago Road being the main road between the Pacific Highway and Newcastle Airport or that the chapel is 250m from the house,[6] or that Clarence Town Road is the main road between various locations.[7] I didn't actually add much to either article and what I did add was the least amount of information that should have been included. What specific content do you claim I duplicated? Regardless, getting upset that somebody has created content before you have is something that should not happen. That happens all of the time.

there's no compelling need for a duplicate section in the town article just because you felt like removing the links I'd added. - That's not at all what happened and I resent the accusation. In fact I edited both articles because, with only one entry, "has a number of heritage-listed sites, including:" is a silly way to state things. While "1" is technically a number, that format is normally only used when there are multiple items. The edits I made were to expand the section, nothing more. At the Woodville article I also made a number of edits to fix errors in other sections of the article. It really is inappropriate to make baseless allegations. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

These links are only ever added to town articles when the site article is coming within the next 48 hours or so. You've seen me roll these out for a while and you know this. I don't mind at all if you want to reword the generated text for the links in the town articles, but why duplicate the about-to-be-added content in the town article - particularly when removing links to the imminent content in the process? The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow you around Wikipedia so I've got no idea what you are doing with these articles. Again, don't accuse me of something that is untrue. I also have no idea of what you are planning to do in articles. I'm not a f-ing psychic! And again, please look up the definition of duplicate. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you didn't know then, you do now. Can you please knock it off with the duplicating sections in future? The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I will add whatever content I feel is appropriate to articles as I see the need. There is nothing wrong with the content that I added and you still haven't explained what duplicate content I am supposed to have added. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I create a link to the article I'm about to create. You create a big slab of content on the same subject in the town article that doesn't really fit there solely because I linked the article I'm about to create, making it a pain to integrate with the material I'm adding. I'd much rather collaborate and make the best use of your local knowledge, but if you're going to insist on being confrontational, I can always revert until you stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You create a big slab of content - at Tomago, New South Wales the content changed the article size by a mere 38 words. At Woodville, New South Wales it was 32 words. Neither of those could be considered a "big slab".

on the same subject in the town article that doesn't really fit there - Of course it fits there. There's absolutely no problem. It's all relevant and verifiable.

making it a pain to integrate with the material I'm adding - It doesn't do that at all as my "big slabs" of content don't affect you creating a new article and after you've created an article you haven't added anything to the article that links to it. All you have to do if the changed or removed links don't fit the new article name is to either restore the link (easily done![8][9]) or name the new article appropriately. If you had done the latter in both cases, you wouldn't have had any issues.

but if you're going to insist on being confrontational - I'm certainly not being confrontational. You are the one who has reverted valid changes and you are the one who has accused me more than once of doing something I haven't done or of knowing something I certainly didn't.

I can always revert until you stop - That's not being confrontational? Worse, threatening to try to start an edit-war or be deliberately obstructive is not something an experienced editor should do and would certainly not end well.

And you still haven't explained what duplicate content I am supposed to have added. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Season articles

Thank you for your very detailed explanation on Robloxian56's talk page regarding when season articles are appropriate. Makes a lot of sense. With your permission, will utilize in future explanations to other editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

template talk infoboxes

Hello, I posted in what I believe was the correct section but I haven't seen any responses. Do you have any advice for me?

Thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_television — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashinga (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

About all I can suggest is that you mention it at WT:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks for reverting my edit on the Arrowverse template, I have spoke to the editor who deleted the page as it wasn't actually a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Move reverted

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Church Hill, Sydney has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". Such consensus is particularly required before moving a title with incoming links in order to create a disambiguation page at that title. If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion to form the appropriate consensus. Again, please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. XP-93 (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that that this is a clearly inappropriate tag as no page was moved, nor is there any outstanding request to move a page. Instead, an inappropriate article was redirected to the article where any content in the inappropriate article should be. This has been explained to XP-93 on his/her talk page.[10] --AussieLegend (✉) 05:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Countries

You are very very politically...pfff. In the case of Nigeria and Sudan, put data recalculated daily ... and many other countries. In some states you put an exaggerated population, and in other states you cut 10 million. You are not impartial. Politically obvious. You are not interested in official census ... you are not interested in official data... of course you are promoting the UN, promoting data calculated 20 years ago. In some countries calculate manually 199, 245... peoples per day, ar random. I'm not a big legend like you, I'm not the chief of bosses ... and I'm not interested in living from the wiki like you. It does not make sense to waste time with you, put what you want ... the boss is the boss. The big disadvantage on the wiki is that ... the political chief put what he wants and the others contribute in vain :))). MIHAIL 07:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are still making absolutely no sense. I have no idea what you are talking about so I can't really say anything else. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

no heading

Please do not delete your wikipedia pages because we have stated that they are incomplete and that we will add further information along the way. Thank you. Alex Olaru (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury

Hi. Can you be a good person and look at Murder of Kylie Maybury to see if it needs any tweaks at all? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I did

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noramiao (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You have not made a single post at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population and the posts that you have made at User talk:TU-nor do not constitute discussion. This was even made using someone elses signature. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I said I did discuss it, because I sent him this message :

" Dude !!![edit source] 1. Stop wasting my time.

2. Stop interrupting anyone.

3. The oldest information should be updated.

4. Rank doesn't mean sovereignty is taken away.

5. Look the CIA standard for ranking.

6. Look the Spanish version, the French, the Russian, etc.

99% of the versions are using the ranks and all entities are

NUMBERRED.

7. You need to STOP.

You can not tell people in England that they should drive on

the roads the same way as Americans in USA drive. Everyone

works different.

Read 100 times again #2. ′ "

Also I'm trying to figure it out how to sign Noramiao (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, to sign, add "--~~~~ after the end of your post.

Secondly, that is not discussion. That's being abusive on someone's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

1. I did discuss it with the person who created an edit war.

2. I addressed the person on his page, because he is the only one

who interrupted me in the middle of my contributions.

3. That same person abused my page. I did not. I simply replied,

and nothing else.

4. If I wasn't interrupted by now all of the information first

was going to be up to date, second numberred, and third sources

would have been updated.

Everyone works different !!!

Noramiao (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please don't create a new thread for every reply. To reply, indent your text as I have done. Addressing your points: :::1. TU-nor did not start an edit-war. He opposed your edits, as he is allowed to do, and reverted explaining why he did so on the article's talk page and in edit-summaries as well as leaving a note on your talk page. Instead of then discussing this on the article's talk page you restored your edits.

2. Your first post on his talk page was to threaten to take the matter to ANI. Of course, these were not your words. You simply copied conmments by another editor, even using that editor's signature, which is most inappropriate.

3. A review of your talk page shows no abuse by TU-nor. Instead, he quite appropriately queried your failure to provide a single source for any of your edits. He later explained the methodology used for compiling the list, a methodology that you completely and arbitrarily changed without any discussion or explanation. You didn't simply reply. You copied someone else's post on his talk page and left abusive posts.

4. Sources should be added while you are updating an article, not at some later date. You are not the only person who edits the article. You do not own the article and so you have to work with other editors.

Everyone works different - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort by thousands of editors. We have a Manual of Style and numerous policies and guidelines that all editors are expected to follow. You can't expect to make edits to an article that do not comply with the MOS, policies and guidelines without etting negative feedback. You have to try to work like everyone else does. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

1. I did not left abusive posts, I copied a message which confirms that

T*U has consistency to harrass and abuse people.

2. I did not resubmit my edits, I created new ones with the same info.

3. I intended to update the info, then to number the info and then to show the sources.

If I wasn't rudely interrupted I was going to complete this by now.

Between the updating the info, the numbering and providing the sources it could have take me 3 seconds between each step of the way or 3 years between each step depending on factors like being interrupted, having to babysit,shopping, etc.

Everyone works different applies for T*U, because he has no patience and no critical thinking (fact)

And instead of having a noble and PATIENT approach, he simply wastes time with absolute nonsense.

Noramiao (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, please learn to indent. Copying that post was completely inappropriate. The other post that you left on his page was abusive. Resubmitting edits in the way that you did still constitutes edit-warring. The process that you used is irrelevant. What matters is the end result. TU-nor's edits were entirely appropriate. Yours were not. You really need to accept this. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

1. I do try to learn, not just the indent.

2. Copying the post was not inappropriate, it was TOTALLY relevant.

3. I did not edit-war, I updated the most up-to-date info at the brand NEW time.

4. The prosess I used is SEVERELY relevant.

5. The end result that matters is that some people are not productive and they did not contribute anything at all, simply because they waste other people's time and LIFE with wrong approach.

6. You are obligated to accept the fact that Patience is a virtue which is beyond obvious that T*U does not possess.

7. Wikipedia is as mine as is anyone else's, therefore my time should not be wasted when people do no possess critical thinking.

CIA is an organization that gets information from national data of each country plus other sources in order to cross :::::reference.

It's widely adopted data is used by the UN, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc.

CIA have a uniform standard and updated data. Simply because someone is wasting my time to update the info on :::::Wikipedia, this does not mean they are relevant.

Respectfully I hope you "really accept this".

Noramiao (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be capable of making substantial edits to an article so you should be capable of learning something simple like indenting. It's not rocket science. Whether you think so or not it most definitely was totally inappropriate to copy and paste another editor's comments and signature without providing context for your edit or attribution for the text. There are legal ramifications. I suggest you review "Copying within Wikipedia". Similarly, whether you think so or not, you did in fact edit-war. As I stated, the end result is what is relevant and that demonstrates edit-warring regardless of how you did it. You don't own anything on Wikipedia. Nobody does. If you can't accept that others may change or revert your contributions then perhaps you shouldn't be editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk

(Hey, I'm not sure how else to message you so I am doing it on here. ) Why are you deleting my edits? --Lorisa214 (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Each of the reversions has been accompanied with an edit summary explaining why the edit was reverted. Bellamy Blake was completely unreferenced. Unreferenced articles should not exist. Unreferenced fictional character articles are regularly redirected. That particular article also lacked any real-world treatment of the character and was essentially a plot only summary of the character. At List of The 100 characters you inexplicably duplicated the references section as well as already existing categories. Other categories were only tangentionally related to the article - categories should be defining. The images that you have uploaded have a number of problems. Non-free images need fair use rationales in addition to licensing templates and all images require a summary template. You can't simply copy an image from a website and upload it here. And so on. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

Just wondering, did you file an SPI on Allylyric (and Noramiao)...? If not, were you planning on it? Couple of DUCKs right there if I ever saw any... Anyway, I was just curious. Cheers - wolf 06:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I haven't done anything. With Noramiao indef blocked and Allylyric not having posted anything since 2 September I didn't see the point. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Slow Vandalism

I left a note for User talk:Alex Shih that some bastard is whittling away at Dave Hughes but you might be more interested and more capable of fixing it. MBG02 (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide some more information?

Leftover bracket

Hi AussieLegend,

I noticed there's a leftover bracket ("}") after the High Lord Togneme Vicarus userbox on your user page. As I'm not a fan of other people editing my user page (even if in good faith), I'm hesitant to do so at others'. I thought I just let you know instead. Kind regards, soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that. For future reference, I have no problems with editors making constructive edits to my user page. As long as they leave an appropriate edit summary and the edit was made in good faith, I don't even mind if they make a mistake. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

User AussieLegend,

You have got the wrong person. I guess I share an IP address with someone who's vandalizing the Wizards of Waverly Place article. I haven't edited a Wiki articles in at least 10 years, and I've certainly never vandalized one. Please do not message me again.

Cheers,

Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.99.204 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@98.67.99.204: - For the record, you are replying to a warning that I left on your talk page on 26 January 2011, over 7.5 YEARS ago after someone using your IP address vandalised Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie here, here and here. Were you using this IP back then? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

T:ITV listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect T:ITV. Since you had some involvement with the T:ITV redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested a block for Family Guy vandal

Here [11]. This has gone on way too long. Thanks, JNW (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sebuah BintangWiki untuk Anda!

	BintangWiki Asli
	thank you has repair my article but you don't deleted or removed my article Dimas gilang (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of doc change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hey,

In your recent change to the doc at Template:Infobox television episode/doc with The number of the episode within the season or series., did you mean by "series" the alternate word for "season" or the TV series as a whole (so as an example - E. 4 of S. 2 in a 10 episode season, would be 14)? --Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

My edits were mainly capitalisation fixes and addition of underscores where appropriate. The actual meaning of the section is as it always was. Regarding the meaning of "series" this is explained in the documentation: Typically, "series" is used for television series produced within the United Kingdom while "season" is used for American television series. i.e., where the US uses "season", the UK uses "series". We're clearly talking about individual "seasons" here, not the series as a whole. That's why they're combined in the documentation. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Learn to read and be less patronizing. I quoted the exact change I was talking about and had a specific reason for asking, which I'm sure you understood but choose to ignore in order to belittle, as you usually do. Was thinking of ignoring this, but decided to have it stated. Have a nice day. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

How about you learn to say exactly what you mean and stop criticising others when you imply something other than what you mean? There was nothing wrong with my reply. As I said, my edits were minimal and did not change the meaning of the text at all so did you mean doesn't make any sense since I didn't mean anything. The meaning in the text was already present and what I did didn't change anything. I simply fixed errors in the documentation. Now, if you can't be civil here, please don't visit my talkpage again. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I did say exactly what I meant, and I even quoted the exact line and bolded your change, while you talked about mainly capitalisation fixes and addition of underscores where appropriate which I didn't even mention, so stop acting as if you've answered what you thought I meant. Your addition, while fine, opened it up for misinterpretation by editors who can think that it is ok now to write the overall episode number instead of the season number, as you know, the rest of the world sees "series" as the actual "TV series" and not season. But whatever. --Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you didn't explain exactly what you meant as I've just explained at the template talk page your bolding was mysterious and you made no attempt to explain why you bolded "or series" specifically. If you bother to read everything that was changed,[12] it should be obvious why I added "series". Specifically, the section that I quoted above, i.e. Typically, "series" is used for television series produced within the United Kingdom while "season" is used for American television series explains that the terminology is different in different countries. Note that before that the documentation says "The number of the season (or series) this episode is part of". The next row in the documentation said "The number of the episode within the season" so the change to "The number of the episode within the season or series" should be self explanatory. The previous two rows talk about "the season or series" so "or series" is clearly referring to the UK (and Australian and other countries) equivalent of the US season. It was therefore unnecessary to ask what I was referring to and the fact that you needed to ask gave the impression that you were, at best, confused. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to add fake warnings to my talk page then this discussion is over. Please don't come back or we're going to end up an ANI. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Sebuah BintangWiki untuk Anda!

	The Special Barnstar
	I don't understand how to edit a wikipedia article at least it's wrong Dimas gilang (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sebuah BintangWiki untuk Anda!

	The Special Barnstar
	I don't understand how to edit a wikipedia article at least it's wrong Dimas gilang (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Instead of leaving these silly banners on user talk pages, please read your own talk pge, follow the advice given there and learn how to edit articles in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Sending I love you messages after you have screwed up because you completely ignored advice does not help! --AussieLegend (✉) 08:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sebuah BintangWiki untuk Anda!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	please don't moving & editing my article on draft Dimas gilang (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding Infobox television season/custom

Quick question so hopefully this won't get derailed by both of us into an argument. Regarding your comment of To be honest, I'd love to see both templates deleted but Infobox television season/custom is used in 232 articles. - what are your thoughts of using modules instead of that template and adding a module field to {{Infobox television season}}? Pros: smaller and easier to maintain and tailored to different types of series (reality competitions, amazing race, survivor, etc) and will allow us to have the good season infobox on much more TV series compared to the current situation where some use a different one. --Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

At the time the infoboxes were merged there were problems with modules which is why they weren't used but I'd happily support that. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

New editors

Hey! I just thought I'd drop you a line about welcoming new users who are editing constructively. I went to welcome this IP, and saw the message you'd previously left for them. Don't get me wrong, using templates correctly important! But there's a better way to welcome new users to the project than two sentences about what they're doing wrong. It's really easy to scare off a new user who's figuring their way around the project. Just some food for thought. Happy editing! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've been around Wikipedia a long time and I wasn't interested in welcoming that editor. I was more interested in getting them to stop their unconstructive editing. It's fairly obvious from the contributions that the editor knows what they're doing, which is why I left them a note and not a templated warning. If they were going to be scared off by my note then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for them. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Dimas gilang

If you do take this user to WP:ANI (and there's no question this should go to ANI now), please either drop me a line or ping me, as that's one ANI discussion I will definitely contribute to and follow. But this user merits an WP:INDEF by this point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Just drafting it now. I've pinged both you and Gonnym in the discussion regarding the AfD. Please prepare some examples of Dimas gilang's "work" to add to the evidence. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Discussion (Maybe one day an admin will join in.) --16:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Dimas gilang has now been indef'ed at ANI. If you take any of this editor's articles to WP:AfD, please drop me a line – IMO, every article User:Dimas gilang has created will need to be deleted... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. Alternatively, move some back to draft and see if anyone is interested in fixing them. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: Fokus (TV program) has now been WP:PRODed – I have endorsed the PROD. However, there are other articles of Dimas gilang's out there that will need to be PRODed or AfDed. I may get to those myself, but it won't be for a few days... Again, if you get to any of them first, please just let me know! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AussieLegend. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AussieLegend. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

New infobox module

Hey, I pinged you on my talk page regarding the conversion of the Big Brother sidebar into a infobox module to the season infobox. I was wondering if it should be used for only Big Brother articles, or should the scope cover more articles? Currently it has 3 parameters which are more general - |host=, |winner=, |runner_up=; and 3 parameters which are more specific to Big Brother - |number_days=, |number_housemates=, |companion_show= and one custom parameter.

• The Apprentice articles could fit here with using the |winner= and |runner_up= and the |starring= from the season infobox. Though it also has |teams= from Template:Infobox television season/custom (which can either be added or not included).
• MasterChef articles could use the |host=, |winner= and |runner_up= and maybe |starring= instead of a |Judges= (though this can also be fixed as a switch case for the label).
• Talent competitions (based on Template:Infobox reality talent competition) would not fit here as they require different parameters: |Judges=, |coaches=, |celebrity_winner=, |professional_winner=, |winner_song=, |winner_genre=, |winner_mentor= |winner_origin= and |finals_venue=. Though, if some of these are considered not needed, it might work.
• I see that you've also added at Template:Infobox television season/custom a |num_tasks= which is currently not in the Big Brother module.

Any thoughts/input? --Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I did see the ping but got sidetracked with pesky real world stuff. I believe we should limit the use as much as possible. A long time ago {{Infobox television}} was able to use custom colours. Later this was restricted to specific programs where the related project could justify custom colours and this was controlled through Template:Infobox television/colour, which was deleted in 2016 after it had finally been deprecated. A lot of editors who are fans of the various reality programs like to see additional fields but the justification for these is weak at best. Many reality programs survive without additional fields so strong justification is needed for these. The only reason I didn't remove them at Template:Infobox television season/custom is because I didn't seek consensus to do so. The fewer custom parameters we have the better so I think the approach that we used for infobox television colours should be continued with the new module. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

In "custom parameter" do you mean the "label1/data1" custom parameter or show specific ones? There is only one custom parameter as the Big Brother project said it was essential to them but they have strict rules what can and cannot be added to it. Could you also give me specific answers to the other template options? If your previous answer covered them also then I couldn't follow how you suggested handling it and would appreciate if you could explain again. --Gonnym (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Family Matters

I actually took the original image to the white background. You owe me an apology for accusing me vandalism.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? I owe you an apology? Let's look at your edits at Family Matters:

• 1 - This introduced spurious code between "image" and the equal sign that placed the article into an error category, specifically Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters, which is how I became aware of your edits. You also changed the infobox image from File:Family Matters.jpg to File:Family Matter.png but the second, strangely named image, ("Matter" without the "s" makes no sense!) bat that image wouldn't display because of the spurious code that you added. You also added spurious code between "runtime" and the equal sign, cementing the article's place in the error category.
• 2 - Not happy you changed the image to File:Family Matters.png but that image wouldn't display because of the previously mentioned spurious code.

I made two edits to the article, one with the edit summary "edit introduced spurious code that place article in error category". It appears that during the time between you made your errors and when I was able to act on them to fix the article you fixed one of them but this was missed when I undid what I thought was the diff where the first error was introduced. Regardless, nowhere in my edit summary did I mention anything about vandalism! My second edit summary, which was the edit where I fixed your other error, was simply "Restored valid image." Again, no mention at all of vandalism. So there we have it. You owe ME an apology for making a baseless allegation. Next time you accuse someone, make sure of your facts. Note too, when you upload two identical, non-free images, make sure you put a deletion tag on the unused one, which you did not. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
	Hi AussieLegend! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to WP:TV discussion

You are invited to a WP:TV discussion about Pigsonthewing and his actions on the infoboxes. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello AussieLegend, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 07:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend ok thanks for the message and sorry it just didn't make sense to keep all on one just two i was just doing the right thing but ok. User talk:TMarrofficialuser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmarrofficialuser (talk • contribs) 06:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi AussieLegend, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 18:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at MOS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why do you keep reverting my addition to the MOS? Do you actually have a reason to oppose the proposed change? If so, could you state it in the MOS's talk page? BarbadosKen (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I have already posted at the MOS talkpage. You CANNOT claim consensus after only 4 days when nobody has discussed and when you have already been reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that your post at the MOS's talk page simply state that you oppose the change, without providing a rationale. That is equivalent to an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. As pointed out to you in the talk page, please provide a rationale why you oppose the change. So far, the only thing you gave was timing - 4 days is not sufficient for you. How many days would you consider sufficient? BarbadosKen (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, I've already responded at the MOS talk page. Please try to keep the discussion all in one place. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at the MOS talk page is about the proposal. This discussion is about your edit warring. Again, if you just oppose the change due to timing, how long do you think the discussion should remain open without opposition until consensus can be assumed? BarbadosKen (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you will find that repeatedly pushing your own edits into the Manual of Style without proper discussion is what will be determined to be edit-warring. As I have indicated at the MOS talk page, I oppose your changes until they have been thoroughly discussed by other editors. How long that discussion takes depends on the subject. It could be seven days, it could be 30, it could be months. Wikipedia discussions don't have fixed lengths. Now, please make all further posts regarding this at the MOS and not here, as I requested. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I see that you consider the discussion closed without answering my question as to how long you think a discussion should remain open without attracting opposition in order to assume a consensus. I will therefore arbitrarily set the time at 1 week, upon which I will revert your reversion if no opposition is provided in the MOS talk page. At that point, if you revert me again, I will file a complaint against you. BarbadosKen (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I have asked you nicely to keep the discussion at the MOS:TV talkpage but you continue to harass me here. Your threat is completely unacceptable so I have opened a discussion at WP:ANI#Inappropriate edits at MOS:TV. Please stop harassing me here. Further edits will be reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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

MOS Discretionary Sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

With special emphasis on "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." Cheers, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not aware of how this has anything to do with any edits that I have made recently. It's rather confusing in fact. What relevance are article titles? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The sanctions cover MOS as well as article titles. Does that answer your question? Anyway obviously you are aware of the MOS discretionary sanctions. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I've read the decision but it seems focussed on article titles and capitalisation. I still can't actually see how it's relevant. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, the immediately interesting point is that that the decision places MOS under discretionary sanctions. Even when it has nothing to do with capitalization. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

If it helps: this is the specific discretionary sanctions you noted at ANI when you said "which warns that discretionary sanctions are applicable to the page". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Total Divas cast table.

Hey there, I was just wondering if you were able to assist me on the latest edits on the Total Divas page. There is a user who claims just because there is not a source to provide for recurring and guest characters, it should entirely be removed with all recurring cast members being reverted to guests. This to me is inaccurate, as they are trying to determine a cast members status based on their personal views. Whereas the difference between a recurring and guest are based on the amount of episodes they appeared in, and the amount of involvement they have with the storyline/main cast members. Also, this seems like a bold edit as every other television show on Wikipedia contains these types of tables, determining main, recurring, and guest characters, so I find it rather silly that this user is targeting this one show yet none of the other shows. Anywho, any assist would be beneficial, and I'm not looking for "back up" as I am open to change, but I want it to be for the right reasons and accurate representations. I do not want to engage in an edit war with them, nor cross any boundaries with Wikipedia. Thanks! MSMRHurricane (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Vikings (season 5)

Just wanted to follow up this: "fails to meet category inclusion criteria - episodes have not yet aired in 2019"? The inclusion criteria is "television seasons that aired at least one episode in 2019". 5x16 just aired today, January 2, 2019 Canadian time. If I'm unaware of new criteria, please inform me. If it was a mistake, please be careful in the future and check the air dates of any episodes that have aired before reverting correct edits. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Block element in TemplateData

I'm restoring your removal of the block element from TemplateData and I wanted to show to you what it does in case you might not have known.

When adding the Infobox television template using TemplateData without it, it placed the information like this: {{Infobox television|show_name=test|genre=horror|director=director}}

When adding Infobox television episode template, using TemplateData, which has it, it placed the information like this:

{{Infobox television episode
| title = lost
| series = 3
| episode = 2
}}

Since the documentation and general practice, is to always place the infobox as a block, it's important to have that element listed. --Gonnym (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym The problem is that we don't want the infobox formatted that way, we want it formatted as it is formatted at Template:Infobox television/doc#Usage. Block formatting results in a lot of maintenance issues, mainly as the result of editors making often significant mistakes that are regularly reported at Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. Lack of formatting makes it a lot harder to fix a lot of infoboxes because the errors are usually not just one item. That was one reason why block formatting was removed here based on advice at one of the noticeboards. What you've said above. i.e. removal results in {{Infobox television|show_name=test|genre=horror|director=director}} (i.e. what Dimas gilang) was doing is not correct. The results from other editors didn't cause this. That seems to have been a deliberate insertion by Dimas gilang as evidenced by his other edits where he obviously knew exactly how to format the infobox clorrectly, for example. The formatting that you removed here seemed to work perfectly for a year before you removed it. That formatting was added here and worked perfectly without any issues until you tried to fix Dimas gilang's probem. I'm going to ping JJMC89 since he added that code and might be able to provide some input on this issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a miscommunication here and either I am not understand you, or you are not understanding me. Could you say which version is the correct way the infobox should be from the two examples above (television or television episode)? --Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

{{Infobox television
| show_name            = 
| image                = 
| image_upright        = 
| image_size           = 
| image_alt            = 
| caption              = 

is correct. Inclusion of "format": "block" resulted in spaces between the fieldname and "=" being stripped by any edit using the visual editor, i.e. the following resulted:

{{Infobox television
| show_name = 
| image = 
| image_upright = 
| image_size = 
| image_alt = 
| caption = 

--AussieLegend (✉) 15:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh ok, as I thought, miscommunication. Well that specific thing is really missing from the documentation over at TemplateData. I'll update the episode one also later to fit it as it indeed better. A shame block doesn't actually format that way. --Gonnym (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Another question, what does the "R" in "RTitle"/"RNext"/"RPrev" in Infobox television episode stand for? --Gonnym (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Gonnym, the R means "raw"; that is, no quotes are automatically added. Exactly like RTitle and RAltTitle in {{Episode list}}. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Alex! I'm assuming these are for nameless episodes (as in "Episode #3433")? --Gonnym (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Update to scripts by AlexTheWhovian/Alex 21

Hello! This is a generic message created and copied to all editors using scripts that I have created. As I have recently changed my username from "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21", any scripts that I have created that are listed at your common.js page may, at the moment, no longer be working. To fix this, simply update all occurrences of "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21"; see here for an example. All the best! -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Just outta curiosity...

How do you earn a barnstar and all those kinda things??I am bone123 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

People decide to give them to you. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The Crown season articles

Give me strength. Some new user and Alex21 (FKA Alex the Whovian) created season articles for S1 and S2 of the Crown with no meaningful content. Meanwhile, the List of episodes page redirects back to the main article, so there's no episodes page, just these two season pages with no content aside from the episodes and cast list. I'm going to redirect them and create the episodes page later today. I'm never confident I'll do it correctly. Would you mind being a pal and checking my work once it's done? And Happy New Year, or is that in six months? ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Drmargi: I created no such articles. I simply provided attribution and transclusion where it was required. Please correct yourself. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Infobox television season/cleanup

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Infobox television season/cleanup, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I noticed you tagging article to draft redirects with G6

Just a little tip going forward: while G6 is okay to use, the redirects resulting from moves to draftspace can actually be deleted under R2, which covers redirects to both draftspace and userspace from mainspace. Evad37's MoveToDraft script can automate this process as well. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Voice India Season 3 to mainpage

Sir I have corrected all the mistakes and I wanted you to please move it to mainpage right on 2 hrs. Otherwise I will create new page and paste it without any doubt because today is the broadcasting date of this show. Sir,You have only one option to choose Thank You Bhanwar singh vaish (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bhanwar singh vaish: Please do not copy-and-paste the material to the new page. You will create unnecessary work for administrators, who will have to delete your new page and move the existing draft anyway. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sir,Wikipedia is world's largest encyclopaedia and we have to take care that each and every information should be on Wikipedia and today is the broadcasting date of this so so as to I want to bring it to main page kindly grant me permission or please immediately move this page to main page I am waiting for your message thank you Bhanwar singh vaish (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bhanwar singh vaish: There is no rush to bring it to the main page, especially to bring a version that is full of grammatical errors and lacking in sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bhanwar singh vaish: As you should be aware by now, creation of the article was declined at AfC as there are still several errors to fix. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television/sandbox/doc

Is there any use for Template:Infobox television/sandbox/doc or can it be deleted? --Gonnym (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it can go. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Last Man on Earth

Hey AussieLegend. I recently updated the The_Last_Man_on_Earth_(TV_series) page to say it "was an American post-apocalyptic comedy television series . . ." but you reverted the edit back to "is an American post-apocalyptic comedy television series . . .". In light of the series being canceled, shouldn't the description be in the past tense now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenmaxwell (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lorenmaxwell: Per WP:TVNOW "references to the show, and its characters and locations, should always be in the present tense, as the show will still exist even after it is no longer airing new episodes". This reflects what MOS:TENSE says. We normally write articles in the historical present. I actually linked to WP:TVNOW in my edit summary so that you could read this for yourself. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Ah, got it! I didn't even think to look at your edit summary. Thanks for the explanation!

February 2019

Just in case you were unaware, all the Plot Summaries on The Grand Tour have been reduced so that they have less than 200 words. The only one that hasn't been changed is Colombia Part 2. (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2019 (GMT)

Hey Aussie Legend, Firstly I would like to apologise if there was any instances where I came across as rude or obnoxious, taking on board your criticism and making logical edits to pages such as Hell's Kitchen or The Grand Tour. Thank you very much for your assistance. Secondly I'd like to report the following user @Alex 21: who appears to be bullying and harassing other users, threatening them with Blocking about edit wars, often being obstructive and rude when they make changes to articles. He is currently under investigation by the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (GMT)

@MichaelCorleone7: How was the edit-warring warning different to the dozens of the others on your talk page? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Your manner and response was rude and sarcastic. How is that other users are now complaining about your behaviour?

Ah, you mean this comment, not the automatic warning. Interesting. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Do you even realise how bullish you are - as stated above, why have other users reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2019 (GMT)

@MichaelCorleone7: Wouldn't be a problem if you didn't edit war. Happy editing! -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Likewise don't bully other users. Have a good day. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2019 (GMT)

Template talk:Infobox television episode#Replacing "produced by" credit with executive producer (showrunner) credit

Replied on the talk page. ATC ^{. Talk} 01:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You for Your Suggestions.I shall follow it. Bhanwar singh vaish (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)