User talk:Alex 21/Archive 2015

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi A. I just wanted to say thanks. I know that some of this "when did they become the lead" stuff can be frustrating. In fact this is one of those debates where, if we were in a chat room, we might go back and forth over this and never get a definitive answer. For the most part the BBC pages about the Dr are used as a WP:RS but they can make mistakes as well. The new series makes things easier as each actor becomes the lead when his (or hers someday-heehee) name shows up in the opening credits. I hope that my edit summaries did not cause offense and I apologise if they did as that was not my intention. Happy 2 days into you New Year. MarnetteD|Talk 00:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC).

Hey Alex, sorry that I told you I hated you. Could you please stop editing Scorpion's episode 16 summary? Thanks! ;-)

@Mlpsparkleswift: No, I cannot. That section is not to tell users what the upcoming episode is about. It's to tell users about what happened in the episodes after it aired. How can you summarize something that hasn't aired yet without copying it from another site? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Alex. I barely saw your message. I removed my summary. Sorry. :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpsparkleswift (talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC) .

I take it then, that no objection will be made if this category be hidden for all the shows listed there, similar to Agent Carter then? Because I'd be willing to do this if you won't. Richiekim (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No objection at all. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Only 2 shows have premiered so far in 2015. Richiekim (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AlexTheWhovian reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: ). Thank you. Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you've easily broken 3RR, with two reverts of the category and three reverts of the color scheme in 24 hours. There may still be time for you to respond to the above report and promise to wait for consensus in the future before reverting anyone else's change. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If you'd notice, I ceased the edit warring, and took both discussions elsewhere - the first to my own talk page, and the second to the article's talk page. Both discussions have been settled. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You should have stopped the edit-warring after the second revert. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello AlexTheWhovian,

I am conducting research about newcomers to Wikipedia and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.

I hope to be in touch soon,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, I've reverted what you did because I have reason to believe that ratings do not have to be final ratings to be inserted into an article. Never have I seen before that someone removes fully sourced information regarding a TV rating; regarding both UK & US TV articles. What I was trying to explain in the edit summary was that:

1. All the episode lists I've seen across Wikipedia do not state "Final UK/US ratings", they only state things such as "US Viewers (millions)", "UK viewers

(million)" & "UK viewers (millions) Sourced directly from BARB". Thus meaning that any fully sourced ratings can be inserted, both overnight and final.

1. On MOS:TV they do not state anywhere that ratings have to be final. They only state sourced ratings.

My point is that an overnight figure is better than nothing. Check the reference yourself, its properly edited, fully cited, linked properly, and I've even said in the edit history that once there is a final figure, please feel free to edit.

I wouldn't have such a problem with this if you actually gave me a WP MOS protocol that stated that the column was for final ratings only. If you can find that, feel free to comment back and I'll go back on my word.

And I don't want to come across like I'm attacking you, but I have a gut feeling that you reverted it because I commented about the whole Agent Carter colour scheme thing. If you did or didn't, I would never expect anyone to remove sourced information just because my comment was against your actions. I was only stating the MOS Wikipedia protocols... and it happened to be that your edit was against the rules... not my fault.

Thanks Limbsaw ^~talk~ 01:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Limbsaw: - It is standard practice to use final ratings. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Limbsaw: Thank you for your faith in me that I'm immature enough to revert you simply because we had a disagreement elsewhere. I followed standard practice here, as you've now been given by a total of four editors. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again A. I just saw that you used User:Ucucha/duplinks. Looks like a useful tool. I wanted to let you know that I too remove WP:OVERLINKs when I see them. However, I do give some leeway depending on the size of the article. If the article is a long one and an item is linked in the lede or the first section but then it isn't mentioned again until - oh lets say the ninth or tenth section - it can be okay to have the item linked again. That saves the reader from having to scroll and scroll and scroll to get back to the spot where the name is linked. This is not a hard and fast rule and is up to each editors discretion. In fact you don't have to follow it at all. I just thought I would post this as food for thought. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The summary does not need redundant information that is already listed in the sidebar to be repeated again. What happened to "Assume good faith"? Reading over down this page, it would you seem get into many other edit wars rather than giving people the benefit of the doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.101.100 (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You say to not undo edits that do not appear to be vandalism, but they appear to be so to me. You are removing important information from the lead. You cannot use the excuse of it being repeat in the infobox, given that much more from the infobox is repeated in the main article, though in this case, it's from the lead. The infobox lists the important details, the article then expands upon these details. If you wish to remove something, discuss it with other editors first with a better reason. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, there is a current ongoing discussion revolving around the style of crediting writers for the TV series Glee, over on the talk page. I thought you may be interested in voicing your opinion. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@LLArrow: Though I don't watch the show, I will take a read over it and give my neutral opinion. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits on The Big Bang Theory and replacing it with non-updated info and sources. Jatremitiedi (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jatremitiedi: You have been reverted by multiple users. Your edits contain sources that are poor and dubious. We stick to strong and reliable sources. Convert to revert from the status quo, and you may be up for edit warring. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You reverted my edits because I didn't "discuss it" first. Yet I did leave a message on the talk page, but you failed to reply. Nothing was ever "agreed", either. To my recollection it was your idea and yours only. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 15:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I said to leave a message on the talk page for everyone, for other contributing editors to reply to and discuss. It was my idea, agreed, but it was also agreed upon by other editors. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

SORRY, I was just happy and the happynes got over me. I apologize, it wont happen againThe Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• On the Constantine (TV series) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you deigned to look at what I'd actually added instead of assuming that you're right. I've added a new source which explicity states "The episodes being filmed first are a two-parter written by Being Human's Toby Whithouse who has previously written Doctor Who episodes School Reunion, Vampires of Venice, The God Complex and A Town Called Mercy. It is said to be episodes 3 and 4 of series 9". This is the required source connecting the previously confirmed "episodes three and four in filming block 1" with the separately confirmed "Toby Whithouse has written the episodes being filmed". We now have a source connecting these two, as such WP:SYNTH does not apply, and the information is valid. FaithHealer1 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for working with my note about "Appreciation Index" on the season table. I'm conflicted about whether it is better or not. For me, although the link is blue and underlined, it is still on the iffy side to know that there is a link to click on. I guess I keep coming back to the idea that so many readers out side the UK will wonder what that column is for. OTOH I think you did a good job of finding a place for it and it is a solution to how clunky my note looked. It will probably work just fine. One other thing to consider, since the table is so long and some readers will use the table of contents to click lower down and not even see the link for the first season I wonder if it the link should be added a couple more times. Not every season mind you as that would be an overlink. Maybe add each time that it is a season/series that introduces a new Doctor. Well there isn't any need to rush. Think about it for a couple days and if these still seem like bad ideas then don't worry about it. Enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 05:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"None have replied to your discussion, that is not concensus, that's just you. Wait for validated and more experienced editors' opinions) (undo)"

Basically, you are saying that IP editors are not allowed to edit articles at all. I said there was consensus because I was agreeing with TWO earlier comments that disagreed with "Alternate present" label. No one had argued for that in the last 5 weeks. If you don't like "secret history", how about stating why (on the article talk page) rather than just implying IP editors are clueless idiots or vandals. 202.81.249.151 (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all. Though, by your remarks, perhaps you should learn how to edit. Hundreds of editors have edited the article, and had no problem with it. One or two editor(s) comes along with a problem with it. Hence, consensus would be required to change what both editors have agreed on and what is has been marketed as. Simply, really. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

So I need to get every editor who has ever edited the article to agree with any change I want to make or you will revert it? Okay. I had assumed that anyone who actually cared about it would have it on their watch list and have responded sometime in the last 5 weeks to the original discussion, which so far is unanimous in rejecting the label "alternate present". So, how many months do I need to wait? If you actually have an opinion on the merits of the edit, other than who made it, why not discuss it at the article? I have no idea what you mean by "what is has been marketed as". When was it ever marketed as "alternate present"? There is no citation for that label. It's just what one editor sometime ago wrote. Let him defend it if he cares. 202.81.249.151 (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You are aware the D in WP:BRD actually requires "discussion" if you disagree? But after 2 days you have yet to express any opinion on the article talk page. So, I reiterate that there was (and still is) a consensus at Talk:Ascension_(TV_series)#.22Alternate_Present.22.3F that "Alternate present" is not appropriate. While I'm sure that "secret history" is actually the better term, I'll just remove the less appropriate one and ask you to discuss on the talk page rather than blindly revert if you have a problem with that. 202.81.248.195 (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't undo this guy's edit, but can you see if its valid for reversion? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: It was, and I did. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I thought you may like to voice your opinon on a matter that is currently being debated over at the DC comic book character Katana's Talk page. It concerns Arrow. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, how you doing? I recently noticed you frequently make contributions to the Revolution page. I don't know if you are aware, but the show released a couple of animated webseries throughout its airing. However, it is not even cited in the show's article nor on its episode list. I'm not really having much free time lately so I was hoping you could look into that. Thank you —- Artmanha (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the link to The Writing on the Wall. It seems that the capitalization was confusing Wikipedia and it probably should redirect to the disambiguation. I was quite surprised to see it redirect to the TV episode given the prominence of other similar works. Should be all set now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

I added in the names for the next 5 episodes as released on Stan which you reverted as there were no sources cited - fair call.

The only source I can find is on Stan itself - [1] however this does not appear in the public domain as a login/subscription is required to view the list of episodes. Would this source be sufficient or would a source in the public domain be required? I'm not fully up to speed on citing sources! Any way around this or should I just wait until a more public source becomes available? Troy Reynolds (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Troy Reynolds: Thank you taking this to a discussion. The source would been to be in the public domain, so that it can be verified. Anything that cannot be checked by everyone would be unverifiable. If there's an episode listing on Stan, there may be such a listing publicly-available as well, it may simply take a bit of searching, which I'll be looking for in my free time. Do re-instate the episode titles if you find a public source. Thanks! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, agreed, I've just been reading up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and it would appear that "made available to the public in some form" makes it pretty clear. I will do some searching also, Cheers! Troy Reynolds (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed you have reverted some edits from others on this article with the reason "Can't summarize something that hasn't aired yet." Just wanted to let you know that all 7 episodes have in fact "aired" on the subscription service Stan. ^[1] Troy Reynolds (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Troy Reynolds: They don't air on a subscription service. They're available for viewers to watch on their own time. And again, the issue with public access. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, I made two basic edits in the "Sacrifice" entry. The first was to revise "hung from chains, but he manages to escape and return home" to "hanging from chains, but he escapes and returns home", which seemed to me to be improved wording. I'd like to restore that, but don't want either or both of us to get into 3RR territory.

The second, of course, was removing the "shortly before he dies", which I believe is unnecessary. Sara's case in the premiere episode is different: everyone says she died in that episode, so it was part of the story. In this case, the text already describes Malcolm as mortally wounded: that means dying. No more is needed. The episode this is akin to is "The Climb", and my proposed changes left the descriptions roughly equivalent. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I have no issues with the edits abut the chains, reinstate that to your liking. As for the second, I believe Sara's and Merlyn's case are similar, in the fact that (as you said) everyone says that Sara died in that episode, and in Season 2, everyone says that Merlyn died in that episode. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, I appreciate you letting me know about the other edits. In the future, if you have problems with part of an edit but not the rest, please undo only the parts that you find problematic and leave the rest intact. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you reverted the edit which removed the Compilations section in the Lindsey Stirling page. I think that the Compilations section should not be a part of the page, as those compilations were not released by Lindseystomp Records as it suggests. Because they were not released by Lindsey, her management has removed them from any legitimate music service. If you need confirmation you can email Lindsey's assistant at support@lindseystirling.com RandomCactus (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why you reverted by edit. I don't know what you mean by the edit summary you gave me. I was only adding ratings for English countries. I wasn't going to add ratings tables for every country or international ratings for every episode. Because we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dcbanners (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The note states "Do not add international ratings for every episode or ratings tables for every country". Straight after, you then proceed to add international ratings for every country. See where I'm getting at yet? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant to only add Australia, UK, and Canada. In other words, the countries listed in the "Broadcast" section. I apologize for the confusion. Dcbanners (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I thought you may like to voice your opinon on a matter that is currently being debated over at the DC comic book character Merlyn's Talk page. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So I put the tag Category:American LGBT-related television programs on The 100 (TV series) in light of confirmation from the writers that the main character, Clarke, is bisexual. You reverted the edit. Is there a reason why?

Please sign your posts so that I know who I'm talking to. My reasons are present in the summaries of the reverting edits. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing the comment and not seeing your reason for the edit. So the page for Category:American LGBT-related television programs states "This category includes television series, made-for-television films, news, entertainment, specials and other programming originating in the United States, which deal with or feature significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device." How does the protagonist being bisexual not fit under that. mpen320 (talk) 08:12, 28 Feb 2015

Because the issue is neither significant, given that it was only introduced in the most recent episode and hasn't had time to establish itself, nor is the relationship used as an important plot device. That covers both areas of the category's requirements. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, but I won't re-add the tag or push the issue since TV shows aren't really my Wikipedia interest. mpen320 (talk) 18:07, 28 Feb 2015

Everyone on the talk page agrees Under the Dome episode summaries should not be on that paged they should be moved. Don't threaten me, I don't care about a stupid rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyedithere (talk • contribs) 04:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Whyedithere: No, they don't. If a season article does not exist, then they belong on the "List of ... episodes" page, and even longer plot summaries on the episode articles. This also doesn't explain why you're removing the summaries of episodes that don't have individual articles. Then enjoy getting banned from blocking! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? Are you trying to pick a fight with me? First off, read WP:ROWN. Have you seen my user page? I shouldn't have to tell you this but, Wikipedia is "a collaborative effort". You have to let others edit (especially if they are much more experienced). Before I decide to revert a registered editor's edit, I check their edit count. If they have about the same experience, or especially if they have considerably more, I won't revert unless it's flagrantly incorrect (and that's quite rare). And if the person has a lot more experience than I do, then it's most likely that they know more than I do. Also, you should give a valid reason for removing sourced content or maintenance templates. These edits of yours are considered disruptive.

Now, about the particular edits:

"a row can be added when there's valid information (i.e. dates and times". That makes no sense. The purpose of a Ratings table is to show the ratings. It makes no difference what information there is. The premiere date is already found elsewhere, so it's unnecessary to add it there right now. And as for the times, there are no sources for them, and you removed the templates (a big no no) without explanation.

"Not an action "film"." Really? You revert a referenced add and that's the reason you give?? There is no separate article for "Action TV show". See List_of_genres#Film_and_television_genres; they're all used for both TV and film. That's how it's done. And even if the wikilink was wrong, that's no reason to remove sourced content. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Musdan77: Welcome to Wikipedia! Firstly, Wikipdia is edited by all sorts of editors equally - just because you've been here for longer, doesn't give you more "rights". I quote you: Wikipedia is "a collaborative effort". Next. Technically the ratings table need not exist, given that it's simply duplicate information of the tables in List of Under the Dome episodes. I quote you again: "[...] is already found elsewhere, so it's unnecessary to add it [...]". The removal of the templates was accidental. No need to assume that everyone who reverts you is "trying to pick a fight" with you. Next. Looks like you were reverted on the Scorpion page by another user. Looks like I'm not the only one who disagrees with the addition of a false, poorly-sourced link. I don't see any "warnings" on their page. Do enjoy you stay here! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

1) I didn't say anything about "rights" (quotes?) or about "being here longer" for that matter, but the higher the edit count, the more experience. More experience equals more knowledge. That doesn't mean that I (or other veteran editors) don't make mistakes. But, you have to figure that someone with 5 times the edit count would know a little more than you about editing (and deleting warnings doesn't really do any good). 2) Ratings table are not "simply duplicate information of the tables in List of Under the Dome episodes", and I think you're missing my point. 3) Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say, "that everyone who reverts [me] is "trying to pick a fight" with" me. It was you who reverted my edits 3 times in a row, with very lame and erroneous edit summaries (did you read WP:ROWN?). 4) The other editor who reverted was because of the source I gave. That's not the reason you gave. Btw, Under the Dome has 4 genres listed and no sources. At least I gave one. I will find a better one. Please try to learn more about when to revert and when not to. It seems that you've had a lot of conflicts with other editors in the short time that you've been editing. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Musdan77: a) Incorrect. A user could go around, fixing minor punctuation on tens of thousands of pages. They have no idea what the rules are, they're just done a lot of minor edits. From there, I have no idea what your experience on Wikipedia has contributed, or what you know about Wikipedia. (And if you bothered to read the summaries, you'd know why I cleared your apparently "warnings"). b) I believe they are, and incorrect, I am not. c) You pretty much did, buddy. You reverted my reverts with edit summaries that were just as poor. d) Same thing. Besides, how can a TV show be an action film? A more correct category would be Action (fiction). And we're not talking about Under the Dome when it comes to genres, we're talking Scorpion. Now you're failing at attempting to bend the subject around to fit your own needs. Please try to learn more about when to revert and when not to. Enjoy Wikipedia, it seems you've attempted to contribute a lot in your short time here. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia.

1) Don't you know what btw means? It means "by the way" -- which means it's another subject (but usually somewhat related). 2) "how can a TV show be an action film?" How is it any different (besides the fact that it's on TV)? That link has been used on many other TV articles. But, if that was your only dispute of the edit, then you could (or should) have just changed that link. We don't just completely revert a good-faith edit by a registered editor (especially with a source) because we disagree with one part of it. That kind of reverting is not helpful (constructive), but is disruptive. Editors are supposed to work together, not against each other. The rest of what you wrote is pretty much nonsense. I'm trying not to make disparaging remarks, because that's not helpful either. We all should be willing to learn from more experienced editors. I actually pretty much agree with that userbox. Notice the word "necessarily" -- meaning there are always exceptions -- but as a general rule of thumb... as I said, the more edits, the more the experience, the more experience, the more the knowledge a person has (and that goes for anything in life). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Lead" is not the past tense of "lead." Please see Strunk and White's The Elements of Style and http://grammarist.com/spelling/led-lead/ for confirmation. Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 12:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I bought The 100 book trilogy last week, and I already start reading the first one. Once I finish the book, I am planning to write a brief summary before moving on the nest two. Once I've finished, can you copy edit the page?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@NeoBatfreak: Sure, I can look into it for you. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Even though I am half way though the first book, the summary of the first book would likely be as short as one of the episode summary from List of The 100 episodes. I should be done by the end of this week. Please keep in touch.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have finished writing the summary of the first book, please feel free to check it out.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Somebody removed the linebreak between the name and the description, I did the same thing to the rest of the names. If you don't like it then please format the character list properly yourself, thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeraphine Gryphon: And what exactly would you describe as "proper formatting" yourself? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever is consistent and doesn't look horrible and dooesn't get reverted by you. Your choice. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I"m not sure how having the actor and character on one line, then an indented description below it is horrible? Especially compared to one great block of text. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No no, I didn't mean that that version looked horrible. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.radiotimes.com/tv/tv-listings#{"sd":"13-03-2015 20:00:00"} is my source. The BBC America cite you deleted in favour of a non BBC source is wrong. A note (efn|) could be added to the uk date when confirmed that it was shown earlier in America. Thankyou.REVUpminster (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You cited no source on the page - here does not count. And all I am getting is a TV schedule for today? Check if it you don't believe me. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the Radio Times has listed episode 9 but without a date as it will not be broadcast until the 20 March. TV Buzzer is an unreliable source but I am sorry you will not accept it. It has also copied the BBC copy word for word.REVUpminster (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

ps I just watched the recorded end credits and the continuity announcer said the next episode would be in two weeks, but can I cite it as only I and two million others might confirm it.REVUpminster (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You continue to state that it is not a reliable source, but you also continue to fail to explain how it is an unreliable source. If my source has indeed copied the BBC word for word, then that would make it a reliable source, since it's coming reliably from the BBC. Make sense? Your claims of 20 March are, unsurprisingly, also unsourced. Also, it sounds a lot like original research you're taking on here. (Given that you can't get these two million people to confirm this!) AlexTheWhovian (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please click on http://www.bbcamerica.com/schedule/ and go to Saturday 3.14 You do not own The Musketeers page and do not be so quick to judge others. We all make mistakes including you.REVUpminster (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Re the filming locations, commons has number of images at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Doksany of Doksany that were used and would make a good gallery in the production section. REVUpminster (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

So, you can't even use the correct source for the 14th of March, you just use the source for the current date, and instead make no note of this in your poor sourcing? I never claimed to own it, not once - I am, however, a stickler for correct sourcing and referencing. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing the wrong information as you did is what gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. It is only as reliable as it's editors.REVUpminster (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Re the miniseries, why did you object to a link from a reputable media website (Fairfax) with a trailer of the miniseries? (NB: no reference seen to the running of the last four episodes into two extended episodes in Oz & NZ, final still to come. Hugo999 (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Trailer and Interview: Gallipoli star hates war even more". Stuff/Fairfax. 3 February 2015.

@Hugo999: Because you seem to be unable to link it properly. What is:

*{{cite web|url=>*{{cite web|url= |title= |publisher= Stuff/Fairfax |date=8 July 2014}} |title= Trailer and Interview |publisher= Stuff/Fairfax |date=3 February 2015}}

? This is rendered as:

[>*. Stuff/Fairfax. 8 July 2014. Missing or empty |title= (help); "Trailer and Interview"] Check |url= scheme (help). Stuff/Fairfax. 3 February 2015.

You see the errors? Perhaps if you add it to the page correctly, it won't get removed again. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In this usage, "S.T.A.R. Labs" is the full name of the laboratory, so the word "Labs" as part of this name makes it a proper noun. This is also how it's identified in the show. And, in every other reference to S.T.A.R. Labs in this article except two (which are also wrong), the word "Labs" is capitalized. I capitalized all three of the uncapitalized references, both because that's how it's spelled, and to make the references throughout the article consistent. I see no difference between the three uncapitalized references which use the full "S.T.A.R. Labs" name, and the capitalized references.

Pleas discuss the Pi Day on Talk:Pi Day. Sekreterare (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You recently reverted me at Constantine (TV series) and in the summary you included "YOU should read WP:OWN, you continue to add this against reverts by experienced editor."

First, I have never and will never claim ownership over the article which is what WP:OWN refers to. I don't believe anywhere that I have said or insinuated that I own that article.

Second, experience does not equal intelligence. These so-called experienced editors are completely ignoring the policies set forth in WP:ROWN.Pjstar35 (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pjstar35: Great idea for you: Perhaps try explaining this to said editor professionally, instead of reverting to personal attacks like you have previously, lowering your view and opinion on the matter. You insinuate it by continuously adding content against the policies yourself, and refusing to wait for consensus. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

From my experience, consensus doesn't really exist. It's just a way for people to do what they want by bending the policies to fit their needs. Sometimes personal attacks are the only way to get through to the stubborn close-minded idiots that won't listen to reason but I suppose stubborn close-minded idiots would just ignore that anyway.Pjstar35 (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please come back when you've actually matured in a way that you actually realize how ridiculous your above explanation is for your behaviour. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You've just made my point for me. The ignorance of young people is so amusing. Thanks! ;-) Pjstar35 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Young people". "Immature". Says the one who feels the need to personally attack users for differing opinions. Thanks for amusing me! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL! You're so butt-hurt. Let it go kid, just let it go. Pjstar35 (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to take a chill pill or ten! And now you're stalking my contributions. Great job. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

I've been trying to turn the synopsis into more of a narrative rather than a disjointed - and often hard to follow - series of one-liners. In some cases I have reduced the total number of bytes, in other cases I have expanded.

It will still take me a while to complete. I've tried to work off line for a day or two each time before bringing changes into the article, in order to link together events across different episodes (for example, Eva suddenly appears in episode 6, despite actually appearing in 1 and 3). My goal is to have minimal impact on the size of the article so that it does not lead to someone suggesting the episodes be broken into their own pages.

I notice that you are putting a lot of effort into this article, so your thoughts would be appreciated.Jmg38 (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The link ends up in the same place as before, it just doesn't look like sloppy markup. (Unlike my typing today.)

Corgi (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you bother changing the date format in a reference. Every date that is generated by Wikipedia uses the same format including the one in time stamps on our posts. There are millions out there in the same format. I normally only care about date formats in the article space. Nyth63 03:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What the hell is this? Are you just C&P the credits everywhere, and deforming template functions? Just add it to the episode, else be reported for vandalism

It's the wikimedia JS code that causes the problem in the editor, so go complain to them or fix it. If wikimedia didn't use any bloated and buggy JS in the form editor there wouldn't be a problem. helmboy 03:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Helmboy: It's not hard to add two credits by hand. And if you look at the table, it's extremely obvious, even to the untrained eye, that you've screwed something up. Alex|The|Whovian 03:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I am admittedly new to the process of editing Wikipedia articles, as well as the "User talk" sections, hopefully i am actually using this correctly. However i am very curious as to why you removed my cast table in the Arrow main page. Although, i admit it was not perfect, it does certainly clear up the cast changes and make the whole thing easier to read, not to mention that the cast descriptions now are much longer than they seem to be in most series, indicating that it will soon be time to make a change. Your edit said it was not necessary, please explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Gustave H. (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monsieur Gustave H.: Welcome to the editing side of Wikipedia! You're most certainly using the User Talk section correct, but be sure to sign your posts with ~~~~. I later made a dummy edit on the Arrow article to expand upon my summary of why the table was not necessary - the addition of this particular table to the article has already been discussed and disagreed upon on the Talk Page for The Flash TV series: Talk:The Flash (2014 TV series)#Main character table. The discussion begins with such a table on the article for The Flash, but then evolves into Arrow as well. I hope that you find this informative as to why I reverted your edit. Happy editing! Alex|The|Whovian 02:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You may remove this if you wish, but know that an edit does not need to be done via 'undo' or 'rollback' to count as a revert. Per WP:3RR: ". An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. "― Padenton|✉   23:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this! Given how much that code is used, this will make it easier. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Glad to help out! I've had to copy-paste the small span so often, so I hope that distributing it throughout series' articles I follow will help other users learn how useful it is. Alex|The|Whovian 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

True. The only thing I'd like to suggest is in the documentation, maybe stray away from "episode table"-centric talk. While this will undoubtably be where the template is used the most, it could have uses other places. Just a thought, but otherwise, good job! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: What do you mean "not as credited"? The punctuation, as compared to the press releases? If that's important, then why are the references deleted when an episode airs? The punctuation in the press releases differs from the on-screen text in the episodes too. The new credits had a reference to cbspressexpress. DarkProdigy (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Punctuation is important, and the references are removed before all information is easily verifiable via the episode. Not is the link you've provided, given that a reference should be publicly accessible - I'm getting a "Sorry. This site is not available from your location" message. I recommend taking this to the article's talk page to get the opinion of other editors, if you have an issue with it. Alex|The|Whovian 00:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am really at a loss on what to do with this user. He/she is arguing based on unjustified arguments and poor editing. They're being stubborn and very unwilling to listen. What should we do? (Answer here to avoid more disruption from them) Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Unfortunately, I am just at as much of a loss as you are. I've had issues with the editor before (example: Talk:Ascension_(miniseries)#Addition_of_a_demo_column and the discussion below it), and it appears that they have a know-it-all and always-right complex. I feel like there's a need to report the user, but there's not really enough to go on, other than his extreme stubbornness which has caused all of this. Alex|The|Whovian 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Now the user is calling me a vandal. This is what they've written: "As for you you really need to get off the broken record of just stating "read the template" when the real issue is the copyright template should never have been used for a trivial fix. You are currently putting the article into peril with being deleted. As if it is recreated the original title can't be used and the other non-copyright details will be lost. So you are technically being a vandal by trying to force it's name change and/or removal." Would be worth pursuing an ANI report? Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware, I'm following your talk page myself, and just added a reply. I'd suggest an ANI report - the ANI page states "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page". We've attempted that, yet the user continues. Alex|The|Whovian 16:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Screw it. I am going to file an ANI report now. It's gone too far, and the user is being very stubborn and immature at this point. Thank you for help. You will have to contribute to the ANI report so I am not left alone being pounded by their poor references in editing and guidelines. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I will definitely be sure to put my view across in the report. This disruptive user has gone on for long enough. Alex|The|Whovian 16:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I filed an ANI report here. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 17:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've had some run-ins with this guy, and commented on ANI to that effect. The vandal claim, pointy editing, abusive edit summaries, and refusal to work to consensus are all part of his edit warring repertoire. Stick to your guns with this one! --Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Thank you so much for the reply on the ANI report. I will stick it with this one. The user has gone too far for me. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 18:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Well, the situation keeps on getting better. Look at Helmboy's recent comment here. I cannot believe he's being this degrading and invincible. I wish there were more ways to bring attention to the ANI report about the user. No admin has intervened as of yet. One admin only replied to Helmboy's questions. Ugh. Do emojis work on Wikipedia? 😤😤😲😲😠😠😠 Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Turns out, all he got was a warning... I have a feeling that that won't stop him. Alex|The|Whovian 08:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

At least it's a step in the right direction. If the user continues with this behavior, then he can't say he wasn't warned by uninvolved editors or admins. If he continues with the behavior after the admin warning, the next ANI complaint will probably be followed by a block. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 15:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

As an editor with an interest in television articles, you may be interested in participating in an RfC that has been opened at Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)#RfC: Should years be included in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

How was that copyvio? I mean, maybe Young & Moving was too similar. I wrote summaries for the other episodes and you didn't remove them despite the same base, just written in my own words... Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: How can you summarize something that hasn't aired yet, without it being based on an online description? Alex|The|Whovian 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Uhmm... A bunch of TV show articles do this... I'd be happy to give you examples? Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 02:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Please do. Alex|The|Whovian 02:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: List of Jessie episodes (view Season 4), List of Liv and Maddie episodes (view season 2), Jane the Virgin, Jane the Virgin #2, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 16), Chicago P.D. (season 2), Chicago Fire (season 3), The Fosters, The Fosters #2. I don't know if I should continue? It's been done by a lot, some don't but majority on my watchlist do and I have not seen any rules against writing summaries before an episode airs. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 02:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I'll take a look at these. Though, simply because other articles do it, doesn't mean that it's alright to continue it. As WP:TVPLOT states: Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. However, these episodes have not yet aired, hence they do not yet exist, hence the primary sources do not yet exist. (Don't forget, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page.) Alex|The|Whovian 02:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies about the pinging ;$ However, despite your quotes, there are no rules that disallows the use of summaries (that will eventually be reformulated into more detailed versions) before the airing of an episode. No person has complained (that I am aware of) other than you. If you still disagree with such edits, I'll ask around to make it official. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 02:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

	For having my back
	Thank you for interfering on the talk page, whether it was a good call or not. Man did that person went overboard. I'd file another report; I just wouldn't know where. I am leaving it alone for now until the user reappears with more inappropriate edits. I don't know how much I can thank you. Bye bye for now :D Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll tell the same as I told the IP on his talk page: When it comes to the number of episodes produced in the series, the Xmas special count as regular episodes. It has been like this for a long time. Why the sudden distinction? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Edokter: It has been like this for a long time. Incorrect. The Christmas Specials have always been listed different. Why the sudden change? Besides, Template:Infobox television season states that num_episodes is used for "Number of episodes in the season" - the specials are not part of the series'. They're specials. Unless you can provide a source that states that they're part of the respective series'? (Granted, for Series 9, it also states "This field should remain empty until the season has finished airing".) Alex|The|Whovian 06:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was actually reverting what you clearly replaced with the note and there seems to have been a mix up. Ah well. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

In regards to Once Upon a Time, it appears that you seem to contradict yourself. You remove "Daniel" from Henry's name, and say "not every detail is needed", however, there are other little details that you have no problem with. Please explain this. -Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 16:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mmddyy28: I was not aware of these other details. Good job on removing them! And apologies on not being the all-seeing-eye God. Alex|The|Whovian 22:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I split the two-hour season finale "S.O.S." into two parts. Please don't try to fuse them back together into one. Please talk about this on the "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2)" talk page. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: Let's. You've got three editors going against your view - definitely time for discussion and consensus. Alex|The|Whovian 14:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.¹
I did in fact warn you. By removing the post wherein you were warned, you acknowledge receipt of said warning. I am sorry you failed to heed that warning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note the complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AlexTheWhovian reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: ). The article in question is Gotham (TV series). It looks like you have already reverted four times. You should consider making a promise to stop reverting. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd add that the user should self-revert his fourth revert, as previously (and repeatedly) requested. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: An unfortunate result on your report. Back to editing we go! Alex|The|Whovian 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you are interested in this edits, you are welcome to discuss them on Talk:Wayward_Pines#Airing as per WP:BRD. Maticsg1 (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to inform you that with refusing to discuss the edit you are continously reverting (and I'm currenťly referring to the edit in the Broadcast section, not the Infobox) you are not acting according to WP:BRD. Status quo is used to prevent changes while discussion lasts, not to use it as an excuse to keep your preferred version without discussing it. Maticsg1 (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maticsg1: Apologies; I'll be replying soon. Alex|The|Whovian 08:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

might I suggest an overhaul of the series overview for Atlantis to reflect the events of both of its' series? Visokor (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Visokor: That might be a good idea. Alex|The|Whovian 14:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Might I also suggest a character list article for the series? Visokor (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian Can you please explain why the section about the leaked pilot episode of Supergirl was totally removed? Claiming it is '...it doesn't need to be included.' is opinion. The pilot episode was leaked, intentionally or unintentionally, but the fact still remains so I am at a lost why you completely deleted the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merklynn (talk • contribs) 15:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Merklynn: Please sign your posts on this talk page so that I know who to ping when replying. And I suggest that you take a look at the article history of The Flash (2014 TV series) at around this time last year when the pilot episode of that series was leaked. It was deemed unnecessary by multiple editors - the same extrapolates to the new Supergirl series. Alex|The|Whovian 15:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Apologies for not signing, I'm rather new to this so I am still learning the Wiki syntax. Thank you for the explanation on your edit. I don't agree with the decision of the removal for a few reasons. 1. It is factual, it happened. It can be written in a such a way that it doesn't 'promote' piracy. 2. I suspect eventually there will be a Wikipedia page whereby there will be a page listing all the 'leaked' programmes on the Internet; no doubt Supergirl, The Flash and even Dr. Who will be listed because it happened. User:Merklynn

@Merklynn: All good. I didn't agree with it at first, but I see the point in not needing the content for the leak of a single episode that's not overly news-worthy. The Flash and Supergirl were only one episode; Doctor Who and Game of Thrones were almost half of their respective seasons, hence the inclusion of the leaks on their respective pages. If you'd like further reasoning, I suggest making a discussion on the talk page of the Supergirl article, so that other editors can weigh in. Alex|The|Whovian 16:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have nominated Måns win at Eurovision for a mention at ITN. Take a look. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reversion at Terra Nova (TV series). I've warned Quessler about his edits, so hopefully he'll discuss. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The series documents the Shannon family's experiences
as they establish themselves as members of a colony,
set up  [[Late Cretaceous|85 million years in the earth's past]],
fleeing the dystopian present of the 22nd century.

QUessler - Please stop harrassing AlexTheWhovian on his talk page. As he has quite correctly stated in his latest edit summary talk pages are for discussions, not court hearing-style debates. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort and we discuss issues, generally in an informal way. This is not a court-room, or a contract negotiation. If you wish to discuss edits at Terra Nova, the place to do that is at the article's talk page, not here. You would do well to look at other discussions and see how editors discuss the issues. Your tone is very confrontational at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian deleted the following "unbearable" section conclusion, left behind my "submission", and "forgot" his agreeing:

Conclusion:

AlexTheWhovian agrees to not revert the revert of the current text, if his condition:

change the required material without the new lines.

is met.

Quessler, in the interest of the article's readers, agrees to submit to AlexTheWhovian's wishes.

My original "court hearing-style" layout can be seen here.

Quessler (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed it because it's unnecessary. The conversation is over; go back to editing. Alex|The|Whovian 18:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting rid of all those fake titles which keep popping up now and then. It really is annoying. Thanks again though for making sure the wikipedia is correct and all... :)

Badgerdog2 (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Just wanted to say thanks for helping me pick the right referrence and for cooperating on the Wayward Pines article. Unfortunately, at least in my experience, a lot of editors that revert changes are not really prepared to discuss edits, they just say something like "I don't agree" and that's it. It may be just my experience, but either way - I appreciate you took the time to discuss it. Maticsg1 (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maticsg1: Glad to help out! It was great that we could come to an agreement on the references. Alex|The|Whovian 07:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that you had added a PROD notice to the above article. I pretty much agree with the point you were making and had previously raised this on the talkpage Talk:From_The_Doctor_to_my_son_Thomas/Archive_1#Why_is_this_subject_suitable_for_inclusion.3F here (now archived). The only real further avenue is to open an AfD discussion, but although there are a lot of strong arguments to say that the phone video was ephemeral and without any lasting legacy, there will be a lot of people who will argue that there was so much press attention that it must be notable - so I would predict the fans of the show will outnumber any voices to the contrary. --_nonsense ferret 13:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Lightsout. Your recent edit to the page Love Child (season 2) appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lightsout (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to fix the episode list now that seasons 1 & 2 have a page but my laptop keeps going slow on me even kicking me out.S hannon434 (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@S hannon434: All good! Good job with the season pages! The only issue I had was when the Season 3 and Web-Series tables were removed from the List of Episodes page. Alex|The|Whovian 07:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

More seriously, I made it clear I needed help citing it. I made it clear what the citation was. You clearly were capable of helping me, either by giving me the information I needed or by just formatting a citation to the thing I said was a source. Instead you went out of your way to be unhelpful. That was just plain mean. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Winter's Tulpa: You didn't make it clear, you made it sarcastic. Such editors should probably look at the documentation for templates they're using, or documentation for referencing reliable sources. (Which you still need to do, as the way you're currently doing it is incorrect. But I'll leave that for another editor.) Alex|The|Whovian 06:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I made it sarcastic after my initial edit, with a summary saying "here's a reliable source for it, but I don't know how to cite it," was reverted with a simple "figure out how to cite it" instead of any sort of effort at helping me. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Alex, please don't WP:BITE. Prhartcom (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You reverted my edit a few minutes ago. I found another source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4158110/episodes?season=1&ref_=tt_eps_sn_1
Would that source be reliable? Tommy (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tommy~enwiki: Hi Tommy, thanks for the question! Unfortunately, IMDb is in the same position as the source that was previously used on the article - it's open to be edited by anyone. Sources like Zap2It, FutonCritic and Rotten Tomatoes (currently used for the titles) are the best sources to go by. Alex|The|Whovian 03:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello ATW. The relevant guideline for Tommy~enwiki is WP:RS/IMDB. While I would say that the bulk of their info is legit but they do not come close to having the proper oversight or fact checking that Wikipedia has. You can't contact them directly and getting them to fix something can be nigh on impossible. I have been trying to get them to fix a credit for the actor Barry Jackson for over eight years and the mistake just sits there. Also T, Alex has given you good options to use as a ref. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian and MarnetteD: Thanks guys. I'll refrain from using those sources in the future. I tried to find airdates from the series' official Facebook page and found this comment there that was posted about 11 hours ago:

User: "the next episode...... WHEN? very nice presentation of the first episode"

Official Page: "It won't be long now. More answers will come 7.1 following the 6.24 TV premiere on USA Network."

(Source: https://www.facebook.com/WhoIsMrRobot/posts/929732123760398)

So I assume I'll just have to wait a little longer for the future airdate information. Tommy (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:FACEBOOK T and just be careful as you proceed. MarnetteD|Talk 04:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tommy~enwiki: I've now included the airdates again, with The Futon Critic sourced, as while the titles aren't displayed in the source, the Prod Codes are, and none of them are projected dates.

Hi again A. Re: this edit. When I looked at it I didn't revert because I think I understood the IP was getting at. They were allowing for the fact that the TV film was not directly produced by the BBC. I wonder if a parenthetical or footnote could be added to describe things. OTOH it might be too unwieldy to try to go into those specifics at that point in the article. I just thought it was something to consider. Cheers to ya and I hope you have an enjoyable weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 03:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Hey, Marnette. I understand what the IP was getting at as well, but the series did start in 1963, and is running to the present day. It definitely might be something to note later on in the article that the film wasn't produced by the BBC (though still part of the series' canon), but I'm not sure that it's noteworthy enough to go straight into the lead. Alex|The|Whovian 05:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi AlexTheWhovian, MarnetteD is quite correct, and I suggest being careful about WP:OWN in reverting an accurate, non-vandalism edit out-of-hand. This could indeed be a topic for discussion on the article's Talk page. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop delete comments from others. Wikipedia is a source for everybody. So, if you don't know, why are you deleting all my comments??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiturefantome (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Voiturefantome: Please refer to your talk page. Alex|The|Whovian 17:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you want the page to be deleted but you have blanked it instead.Xx236 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Xx236: Apologies, I should have used a speedy delete template on the article. An actor's page should never be redirected to a character article for a television series, given that they often have more roles than just the one. Alex|The|Whovian 07:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I've semi protected your user page for a week to stop the attacks/trolling. Let me know if you'd like to make it permanent. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Many thanks. A week should do it. Alex|The|Whovian 15:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ratings are now out: http://headlineplanet.com/home/2015/06/16/ratings-game-of-thrones-sets-viewership-high-for-season-finale/

Please stop reverting.--YHoshua (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@YHoshua: Poor source - stick to Zap2It's TVByTheNumbers. Alex|The|Whovian 15:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. They draw from the same Nielsen numbers. That source has also been cited previously in GoT Wiki articles.--YHoshua (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll use it; it also helps in other articles.SciGal (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"While your work on adding new rows for the new seasons, please read WP:TVOVERVIEW. Every attempt that you take to do so will be reverted, as new rows do not get added until a season table can be created for the new season. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian 03:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)"

I only added new sections on some shows because I saw people had already done it on a few shows. Sorry for the inconvenience. I will not do this any longer. --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jonathanjoseph81: Other editors shouldn't be doing it on these other shows you mention either. You can revert such edits yourself if you wish, or if you compile a list of TV shows where such edits are occurring, I'll do it myself. Alex|The|Whovian 17:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I will go revert them right now. Thanks for the tip :-) --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding capitalization, HUMANS metadata specifies all caps. It's on the official page from AMC here. I am working with the metadata for the show and this is the branding for the show. BrillLyle (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: Again, that is simply stylization, even another editor has reverted you so. Official names of series' are not capitalized. Alex|The|Whovian 23:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with the episode count for each character? is it too early?72.64.207.76 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Not too early, but it's not required and is unsupported by the Method of Style guidelines for television series, and doesn't add further information towards understanding the article in question. Alex|The|Whovian 04:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So do I need to wait until after all the episodes air?72.64.207.76 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No. It's just not required, whether the episodes have aired or not. Alex|The|Whovian 19:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, kudos for making a template that can be used for basically copy-pasted text across the TV project. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thanks! I'm wondering if it's possible to create a template for episode table header-rows; we'll see. Alex|The|Whovian 17:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So saw you created the ep table header template. Think it will work, but feel you should find a way to include the '|-' after the template in the template, and then maybe a parameter such as 'episodes=' to then list all the Episode list template, so we can get rid of the '|}' that some users may not realize the would need. So it could be something like: {{Episode header|color=white|background=#B40000|series=5|season=5|title=17|director=11|writer=37|airdate=10|prodcode=6|viewers=9 |country=U.S.|episodes={{Episode list}} }} - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thanks for the suggestions! I was thinking of implementing the '|-', but the episodes= parameter never even came to me, brilliant idea. I've implemented both now, and will look into updating the episode tables of a few television series to test it out properly. Alex|The|Whovian 04:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. That way everything is housed together, and any unknowing IP or other confirmed users will be able to use this template easily. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Got an issue with the template occurring in my sandbox - specifically, adding "Part 1"/"Part 2" colspan'ing rows to tables where the season is split - any good ideas on how to fix it? If not, all good. Disregard; got it! Alex|The|Whovian 12:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not write again that episode six aired on June 18 in Australia, it's not true according the Australian schedule: http://www.fxtv.com.au/listings/18-06-2015. The official Australian website dedicated to the series also confirms that episode six aired on June 25, like the rest of the world, and not earlier. --Supernino (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Supernino: Fair enough, but then answer this: How did the sixth episode result in being online on June 18 as a result of having aired? Alex|The|Whovian 11:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You should ask that to who distribuited that episode :) I took the liberty to reply here so others don't make the same mistake. Bye, --Supernino (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Supergirl was a leak, Wayward Pines was due to it airing. This example does not apply; please choose another. Alex|The|Whovian 11:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please continue in Talk:Wayward Pines. --Supernino (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi AlexTheWhovian, Apologies for the interruption. I noticed that you reverted an edit at Outlander (TV series), correctly citing WP:TVINTL; having read that MOS section, I thank you for the reversion. I did however, have a question, which I hope you might help me with. The section indicates that we are encouraged to only detail noteworthy foreign broadcasts - which seems like a very good idea.

So that I might be able to better apply this in future, could you help me to understand how the Australia, Canada, and Ireland broadcasts are more noteworthy? The delay of the UK broadcast, potentially over concerns w.r.t the Scottish Independence elections seems to make that broadcast easily noteworthy.

Please note that I am not seeking re-inclusion of the information, just a better understanding of our style guide. Thanks in advance for any advice you might offer. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Hi Ryk72, all good! The standard is that here on the English Wikipedia, we only list countries where English is the main language - other countries that do not fit this criteria should be listed on their respective Wikipedia server. Alex|The|Whovian 21:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My apologies. 172.88.146.9 (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, all good! Alex|The|Whovian 06:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey @AlexTheWhovian: -- while you may not use citation names typically, they are good practice in case the citation can be reused again, and I think it's a good practice to leave them in. I specialize in fixing citations and I've found it's better to have the names than not. Also, deleting content like citation names is not really helpful to other editors. I am not trying to get in an edit war with you but you seem to be making some decisions about deleting content that I don't agree with. Having more citations versus less is never a bad thing. BrillLyle (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: Well, "you seem to be making some decisions about deleting content that I don't agree with" seems to be a very WP:OWN-outlook on the matter. References don't need names if they're not reused - if they are reused at a later date, then names can be used. Else, it's merely clutter and excess usage. Adding up to four citations on a line where you need only one is just as unhelpful to editors as well; it's clutter. Alex|The|Whovian 01:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. This is a brand new show -- how do you know the citations won't be reused. I'm trying to clean up the citations and the use of reference names is a GREAT way to stay organized and differentiate between citations. I don't see the point of deleting something that is a an organizational tool. Especially since there have only been 2 episodes of this show and who knows what information might be referenced in these cited articles. There's no reason to delete clean, well-intentioned edits by other editors like this. It's very hostile and is not adding to the article at all. I totally think you may want to take a step back and rethink this. Also I work on a lot of articles and you are the ONLY person who has made this sweeping decision to delete citation names! BrillLyle (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

And I just want to add that every time you engage in the editing behavior you have done on the Mr. Robot page -- and with the HUMANS show, it shows a lot of ill will towards your fellow editor. I'm going to walk away from this page because you are making this experience truly unpleasant. Maybe think about that. I'd love to edit collaboratively, but not if the contributions I make will be deleted for random reasons, with the argument that less is more -- which I totally disagree with. Again, think about how your edit behavior is coming off. Truly, I mean this in the most constructive, nicest way possible. You have run me off this page and the other page now. Is that your intention? BrillLyle (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: To put it another simpler way, reference names aren't needed until they're reused, else they're just "sitting there". What's they're use? There is no use. Hence, not required. If it's not needed (yet), don't add it. An organization tool, as you put it, is only required when organization is required. In this case, it was not. Just because there have only been two episodes and it's a new show, this is not excuse for unneeded clutter. Hostile would be edit-warring my edits against you, and yet here I am, discussing with you as you tell me what my intentions are and what to do. I work on just as many articles as you do, so what's that meant to mean? That you are more experienced and can do as you wish? And of course I'm the only person so far! You only just put them in, there hasn't been enough time for other editors to come in and do so! And what of your explanation as to why three, or even four, citations are needed in a row for exactly the same information?

Perhaps such "hostile" actions wouldn't have been required on Humans if you had read the Wikipedia guidelines. Alex|The|Whovian 01:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I find this discussion incredibly patronizing. A reference name is like a unique identifier for a reference -- it is both an organizational principle as well as a way to reduce duplications. They serve both the current function of identifying each citation so it can be used, and they serve the future purpose of possible reuse. Every time I create a citation I name it, giving it a unique identifier. It is common practice, it is about organization, usage, etc. Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it's not a legitimate usage and principle. These reference names have absolutely important functions! If you don't understand this and have such concern for how extensive citations are on a page, I think it's something you might want to do research on regarding citations. Deleting content is a terrible idea and I have no patience for editors who remove content like this. You win here, despite my best efforts to educate you on this subject. But please think about this more. I really think you are doing Wikipedia harm by deleting content like this. It creates very bad will towards others and their efforts. And it reduces the amount of time and energy others might want to contribute if you are just going to make these god-like decrees about what content is appropriate or not.

And don't go whipping out your Wikipedia rules and regulations to back up hostile behavior. You are the one creating the bad feelings here. Way to go! I really don't appreciate it. BrillLyle (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: A citation doesn't need a name so it can be used. I could put a second season table in now, but it's not required as of yet, but will be in the future. Same goes with references: I could put a name in now, but it's not required as of yet, but will be in the future. You fail to realize that it's not that it doesn't work for me - it's just not required. They provide no further output on the page, and merely contribute towards more text clutter while editing hence no harm comes to Wikipedia, as nothing is being affected for the worse. You also fail to realize that discussions are not about "winning and losing" - this is probably why so many editors feel the need to discuss your issues with editing with you. And I'm apparently "god-like" for deciding to remove unrequired citation names, yet you aren't for adding content that is not required? Your reasoning here fails me.

My actions on Humans were barely hostile, you simply assumed that every website is the same and that we needed to comply with AMC, even though practically every source on that page referred to the series as "Humans", instead of "HUMANS". If that's your outlook, then you really do need to touch up on your guidelines and regulations. We shouldn't need to suffer through your assumptions due to your lack of knowledge. Though, since you brought this up (again), if you still have issues with it, take it there, not here. Alex|The|Whovian 02:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Heeee's baaaaaack![2] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, I have written a section on the fans' reaction to the series cancellation from independent, third-party sources. I haven't included it yet. Should I? SciGal (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@SciGal: I see no reason not to include it. If anyone disagrees with its inclusion, I'm sure that they'll create a discussion on the series' talk page. Alex|The|Whovian 14:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it.SciGal (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@SciGal: Glad to help out! Alex|The|Whovian 14:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You removed my edit putting Richard Hurndall as a doctor actor in the infobox on the page the doctor (doctor who). In my opinion, he should be there as he played the doctor in the television series for an entire feature-length episode, as much as John Hurt (excluding the last few seconds of name of the doctor).

The reason you gave was that he was in other actors who played the doctor, but John Hurt is there too should he then be removed from the infobox? In fact, I think I am right in saying all of the doctors are there mentioned.

If you supply me with a decent reason for the removal, I am happy to leave Hurndall off the infobox. Thanks.

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh: Put simply: Richard Hurndall was a replacement actor. John Hurt was the real thing. Alex|The|Whovian 21:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up, thought that might be the case! Don't why I added it, really. Sorry for the disruption and thanks for the reply.Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zoo (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CTV. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

How do we know its speculation there end, and they haven't had confirmation themselves? You saying they are speculating is you speculating. And also, where should we put the Christmas Special? As there isn't a "Series 10" page or "Specials" page or whatever they are going to do next to add it. Or would that be speculation themselves too? Charlr6 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Charlr6: On the Cultbox page, there is no source or statement of confirmation from an official source (i.e. the BBC), concerning both the dates and the Christmas special. There is extremely little information on the Christmas special, if there is indeed one, so there's no rush to add information about it just yet. Alex|The|Whovian 12:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If/When a Christmas Special does get officially announced, where would we put that information out of interest? Would it also depend on whatever production code they give it? Charlr6 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who no longer uses Production Codes. It would most likely be to a new section beneath List of Doctor Who serials#Series_9 titled "Special (2015)" (or something similar, following the names of other Specials categories), being an actual table on the List of Serials page (instead of being transcluded from other pages), then moved to the Series 10 table once that was created. Alex|The|Whovian 13:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't audio works get listed? Bit mean on the Big Finish people, isn't it, largely ignoring their efforts by limiting them to a spiel a the bottom of the page? They are definitely canonical, if you don't believe me, the Eighth Doctor lists his Big Finish companions in The Night of the Doctor, thus definitively canonising audio works. Therefore, they should be mentioned in the infobox. Moreover, Graeme Garden (who only played the Meddling Monk in audios) is listed in the "portrayed by" section of the infobox on the "Monk (Doctor Who)" page, so why can audio actors not also be on the equivalent part of the Master's page?

Also, was the source alright? I don't know whether it's acceptable, I thought it would be, seeing as it's not a fan site, but I wasn't sure. I would be much obliged if you could apprise me of this.

Thanks. Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Graeme Garden from the Monk (Doctor Who) infobox. Thanks for the headsup, that should've been removed ages ago. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 16:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Amy Manson Portrait.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Whpq (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this would be too much for the episode table but going from what you was doing in your test edit, I was looking at this;

@13thDoctor93: That's rather good! I had something similar in my sandbox (User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox#Episodes), and suggested such an edit on Template:Episode list, but to no reply. I simply find the whole thing of numbering episode with letters (e.g. 254a, 260b) cluttering. Alex|The|Whovian 09:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alex. How are you? I just wondering about your recent edits to the Graham Norton Show page. I knew about the edits to the episode guide but I saw that you recently made sweeping edits to the main page, such as erasing the "as of 3 July 2015" and the current series grid. I have been helping edit that page for a few years now and there has been no problem. Would it be possible to explain your edits and maybe try and revert something like one of the above changes, as this has been the way for British series that I have seen on Wikipedia. (I don't know if it is different for other countries. ) Also, I have noticed that every time that I update the episode count on the episodes page, you seem to make an extra edit not just 5 minutes later changing the look of the episode grids. It does seem a bit bothersome, not to be rude.I have been contributing to the page fora few years and to suddenly have someone taking over is a bit jarring. I know this is Wikipedia but still. I'm sorry if this seems like an attack, but I just wanted to understand your edits. Any help is appreciated.74.15.186.97 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)samusek2

Many of the edits are to confirm to template guidelines and policies. The removal of "as of 3 July 2015" is due to the fact that it is unrequired, as per the {{Infobox television}} template documentation. The current series grid is merely a duplicate of what is found on the List of Episodes page - duplicates are not required. I have changed no such look with my recent edits, merely updating the table headers to a new template ({{Episode table}}). Many editors edit Wikipedia, and many are within the same timezone, so your claim that I "seem to make an extra edit not just 5 minutes later" is rather pointless. While I may not actively watch the series, I have the article on my Watchlist (something that confirmed editors have), and when I see your edits appear, I may notice something else that needs fixing. No editor owns or has control of any Wikipedia page, meaning that there's no leading editor and no "taking over" editor, and simply because you have been editing it for several years, does not mean you have any leadership over the page - check WP:OWN. I recommend touching up on your policies and guidelines. Alex|The|Whovian 19:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've been following the discussions at WT:TV but, in every case we've decided that cast shouldn't be included until they have actually appeared in an episode. Somebody who hasn't appeared in any episodes can't be a recurring character. That's why Chris Evans hasn't been listed as a presenter of Top Gear and why Daryl Mitchell and Shalita Grant haven't been listed as main characters in NCIS: New Orleans. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I kinda of see what you mean with this. But what if the source clearly states that the character will be recurring? Should the information perhaps be added to the Production/Casting section, instead of the main Cast section? It is information about the future of the show, just as future episodes are added to the table/article when such information is available. Alex|The|Whovian 04:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that adding the content to production/casting is entirely appropriate. They can be added to the cast sections once episodes air. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Good work on your edits. I'm more than willing to accept the occasional stupid mistake from even experienced editors (I make plenty muself!) but I just can't tolerate half-arsed solutions from any editor who won't bother to do the right thing.[3] --AussieLegend (✉) 08:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Thanks, and ditto. The straight-out "solution" of affecting thousands of good articles just to fix a few bad ones definitely got on my irked side. Alex|The|Whovian 09:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd be happy to remove colour from the infobox, but I wouldn't remove it without discussion, as he did. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: 'Grats on making the quotes on his user page! Alex|The|Whovian 09:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

WHY would he do that? Most people try to hide stuff like that. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, I just added this to my user page. I hope you don't mind. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No problems! Alex|The|Whovian 10:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand and respect your opposition to him including that quote but really, if he wants to be portrayed as a bad editor, why should we prevent him? If you continue reverting on his user page you might end up in trouble yourself. I don't want to see you blocked for edit-warring and it would not be good for Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent actions on Alakzi's user and talk page have not been constructive, and seem to amount to "baiting". I understand your frustration but please stay away from that user's pages for a while because you are not helping the situation. Stop your edit warring on the user page too. That comment reflects badly on Alakzi and not yourself, so just let it stay there, okay. Further disruption will result in a block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi AlexTheWhovian. I'm looking at MOS:TVCAST, and nothing in there says that what I did with the subsections for Extant was either not allowed, or even ill-advised. The current cast list is a mess, and I really think sub-dividing in to sections by season, as I attempted to do, is a better solution than what we've got now... Comments? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how adding subsections fixes the apparent mess; rather, is it not simply spreading it out? Alex|The|Whovian 18:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the current problem is some of the 'Recurring' list is indicated with "(Season 2)" tag info, but none of the season 1 recurring cast is, and this also leads to awkward problems with the few recurring who were seen in both seasons. Dividing in to 'sub-sections' seemed to solve this issue. As this isn't disallowed under MOS:TVCAST, can we at least try it my way for a while, to see if it improves the situation? (If Extant is renewed for a third season, maybe the best solution will be a separate List of Extant characters article, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Alex and IJBall. Here is some background info for you. Back around 06 or 07 there was a decision to move the cast lists for TV shows into the infobox. It has created problems like this one ever since. This was different from the film project which has a limited number of names in the infobox and then a fuller cast list in the body of the article. Once a show has gone beyond one season the potential for infobox bloat is obvious. My apologies as I wouldn't know where to look for the original discussion. Also, this is only partially relevant to what you are trying to decide. I certainly was not trying to make things worse and I hope you will forgive me if I have. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 20:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, definitely a much different problem with TV series vs. movies. There are several possible solutions: a separate cast list article, shifting the cast lists to separate "season" articles, etc. The issue in the case of Extant is that two seasons is probably not long enough to justify either of these two options. So we're probably stuck with the 'Recurring cast' list appearing on the main article page for now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know what "format" you are referring to, which would be broken by writing the span of a one-year TV series with the DTS tag, with this edit summary. Davejohnsan (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Davejohnsan: Please read the documentation of {{Infobox television}} and {{Dts}}. The former states "Use {{Start date}}(e.g. {{start date|1981|02|26}}) so that the date is included the template's hCalendar microformat, and is properly formatted according to a reader's Wikipedia date and time preferences", whereas the use for the latter is "to correctly sort and display dates in a sortable table (see Help:Sorting)". Alex|The|Whovian 14:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That was all I needed to hear. Thank you. Davejohnsan (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have taken a photo of the source, which shows that the latest issue of the Doctor Who magazine has stated this. Here it is: http://prntscr.com/7vq09j --Badgerdog2 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, AlexTheWhovian I've just undone you're delete since it was not justified. Regards gonporto

Summaries get added when the episode airs in its origin country. It may be available in other countries first, but it hasn't yet aired in America (origin country). You'll note that the summary has been reverted by another editor as well. Alex|The|Whovian 13:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As you are aware, your edit was reverted. The ship is referred to in the feminine, and this should not be changed without establishing consensus for such change first. See WP:SHE4SHIPS. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I noticed that, and read the policy. Fair enough. Alex|The|Whovian 09:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You should expand on your complaint at ANI. It's going to be difficult for anyone to act based on what you've written. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I have now done so. Alex|The|Whovian 13:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Alex. I'm pretty sure you think Alakzi is one giant pain in the ass, but he's just trying to do what he thinks is proper per the color-contrast and accessibility guidelines. In my personal experience, Alakzi is one of the best coders and template editors (if not the best) I've encountered in my 6+ years on Wikipedia. He's sharp as a f---ing tack. He's also a technical guy, and he views the world through that lens. If you want him to understand your non-technical perspective, you need to explain why what you want is important to you. You may find that once you articulate why it's important to you, that it's not that important at all. Or, at worst, the other guy may understand you better and work a little harder to accommodate your concerns. Read my questions on the template talk page, and let's see if we can't find some way to move this forward in a manner that addresses the accessibility concerns. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw the deleted edits on Alakzi's user page, and this, and your edits to his talk page. I can't help but conclude that either you are acting maliciously, or your suspiciously ignorant. In any event, what you're doing is not acceptable and I would urge caution and restraint. Neither you or Alakzi are helping the situation substantially and from what I see, only escalating. This issue can be resolved peacefully and without personal attacks, harassment or malicious behavior (I keep telling myself). I hope you see that too. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm also disturbed by the ANI report of Alakzi, which you originally opened, given

• Prior warning given to you about baiting Alakzi[4]
• Continuing to edit Alakzi's talk page after they requested you not to [5](see WP:NOBAN)
• Forum shopping of Alakzi's behavior on WP:AIV as as at WP:ANI
• Mischaracterizing Alakzi's behavior as vandalism, contrary to WP:NOTVANDALISM

Given that Alakzi is no longer blocked, there is no need for a reciprocal block to keep things fair, as you were not completely innocent in the matter either. Echoing Ceradon, I'm hoping consensus can be reached on the color issue with all parties following WP:DR, as needed, going forward. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Your categorization of "baiting" is incorrect in this situation, I did no such thing. I find it funny that you warn me for gaining consensus when this whole issue was about a troublesome user going against consensus. And I still hold that his edits were vandalistic; you can't force another's opinion. I certainly wasn't innocent (none of us were, given that we were all involved), but I'd calmly recommend that you know what you're on about. :) I'm trying to distance myself fro the issue and troublesome editor, so further replies won't be necessary before I archive this discussion. Thanks! Alex|The|Whovian 07:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I should have placed baiting in quotes, as it was taken verbatim from the previous admin's warning, who also placed it in quotes. I think we're all in agreement to move forward, so I'll otherwise respect your wish for no "further replies" on this. Happy editing!—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Alex. I would be grateful if you would weigh in here: Template talk:Infobox television season#Compromise: a possible way forward. It's to time to resolve this, and given that the timing of compliance seemed to be the primary hurdle, this would seem to be a reasonable way to resolve what appears to be an unnecessarily prolonged dispute. Thank you for your consideration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Alex, I know you mean to be helpful, but your recent exchanges on Whyedithere's talk page, particularly about the Extant (season 2) mess, are doing very little to help the situation with his editing, and plenty to simply make him defensive and defiant. If you continue to return to his talk page and harangue him about the mistake he made, you will find yourself blocked, particularly considering your recent episode with Alakzi.

I'd suggest you dial down the need to be right, and the need to push a point beyond a constructive exchange with an editor. You made your point three or four posts before your exchange with Whyedit ended, by which time he was so pissed off you were just inflaming the situation, not solving a problem. Know when enough is enough.

Similarly, please be careful that when you're criticizing an editor about errors they made that you don't make similar ones yourself. You put the deletion notice and redirect on the correctly formatted Extant (season 2) page, and left the content on the incorrect one instead of the reverse. You should have moved the content to the correct (older) one and then put in a redirect on the new (incorrect) one. Given that, and the ugliness of your most recent exchange with Whyedit, you need to put some distance between yourself and his edits for a while. Drop a note on my talk page or AussieLegend's if something concerns you, and we'll keep an eye on it. --Drmargi (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Apologies for my actions. However, I would note that your third paragraph is the incorrect way of moving an article, as it doesn't move the article's history as well (granted, there wasn't much of it, but it existed nonetheless). Alex|The|Whovian 04:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

And yet you're still going at each other on the List of Extant episodes article. You're both at five reverts (and don't tell me it's on two different topics; it's still five reverts on the page with 24 hours). You need to find another corner of Wikipedia to edit. --Drmargi (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop editing the television shows that I watch because of another editor? And if you'd noticed, I stopped warring, and compromised on only some of the edit, which the other editor seemed to accept. Alex|The|Whovian 16:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has been confirmed

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

Screw this Wikipedia bollox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again I remind you of this warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, I didn't even realise that was a thing. I just picked it based on the colour from list of colours that looked closest to the colour of Randy the purple puppet. I couldn't really find which was supposed to be the definitive tool for picking colours based on the pages you referenced in the edit, although the thread was quite long and I only scanned it. The whole idea seems to be quite a curious area for debate outside basic legibility, hopefully not one I need to bother with too much, and I don't see the sense in being precious about it here, so I think I'll let your changes stand, although if there's an approved colour that's more purple than pink I'd prefer that.Gudzwabofer (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gudzwabofer: You're more than welcome to change it by playing around with colours on the Snook website - as long as the background and foreground colours are WCAG 2 AAA Compliant (i.e. they have a contrast ratio greater than 7). Alex|The|Whovian 02:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for that link, I'll be sure to check it out sometime, but for today I think I'm done wiking.Gudzwabofer (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gudzwabofer: No problems! Unfortunately, not all of the colours on the List of colours page are compliant with WP:COLOR. There's an existing list of 14 colours here that are already contrasting enough, if any of the purples are a better fit for the article in question. Alex|The|Whovian 03:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove the production numbers from the list of episodes on the Mannix page. They are valuable information that people sometimes access and there is no reason to remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jompaul17 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jompaul17: Then put the production numbers in the season tables in the season articles, don't completely revert everything done concerning the transclusions from the individual season pages - there's no need to have two different listings of the episodes. Though if they're not in the season articles, it makes you wonder if they actually are the production codes? Alex|The|Whovian 02:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not have all day to put information back onto a page when someone goes in there and removes it. Who are you to remove this information unless you verify that it was incorrect (good luck with that, because it was correct). If you need to sit around all day and re-format Wikipedia pages, then you should make sure you do not remove information. The production numbers have been there for years -- literally. They were, and are useful information to fans of this series who consult this page when viewing episodes.

Also -- I see you are a 20 year old "Computer Science Student" who has taken it upon himself to format the television pages of Wikipedia in his "spare time" with thousands of edits in just over a year. That says it all -- not a fan of the series for which you removed information, just on some sort of "trip" to feel important -- a classic example of someone with too much time on their hands who is interested in form over function. Who cares about content so long as the colors and formatting are right?

Do not remove useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jompaul17 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jompaul17: Firstly, learn how to sign and indent your responses, and place your responses under the correct heading, else your edits on this talk page may/will be reverted. It's not up to me to add the correct information either - what I'm doing is implementing the correct formats for television series, as per dictated int e very guidelines behind Wikipedia. I need not be a fan of the series at all to be able to edit the page - where you got that idea from, I have no idea. If the information was both correct and so important, then why is it not listed in the tables for the respective season pages? You've now been reverted by another editor - obviously, this isn't me just going around and doing what I want, 'ey? I'm also not sure how my age and what I do is important here. The fact that I've accumulated so many edits in the span of a year shows the obvious level of how important they've been. Continue to revert, and you may be warned and/or blocked for violating WP:3RR. Alex|The|Whovian 02:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, I didn't indent properly -- that goes to the level of importance at which you place your time and effort, fairly perfectly.

So, html mark-up language comes up when I put these responses in, and I really don't have the time to debug this right now, nor go back to editing the mark-up language. I really do have better things to do.

Your being 20 years old and putting so much time and effort into formatting Wikipedia pages was a hopeful attempt to put some perspective into the discussion. I am a fan of a 40+ year old series for which the order of production of episodes matters to the fans. How would you like it if someone went in and edited your, what is it, "Dr. Who" page for form over function -- just destroying edits that were there for years and which fans accessed -- for the sake of formatting?

I see you got a similarly-minded buddy to revert the page back, followed by a threat to me. Alliance with a buddy, followed by a threat, was pretty much what I expected. It fits your profile. Actually, I guess there were multiple threats, since I received the "proper formatting on a talk page" threat. Two threats in one day!

As for the number of edits, quantity does not ensure quality. The opposite is often true, especially in places like Wikipedia. That's sort of the same thing as saying that "I wrote hundreds of line of code a day?" So what? Does it work or did you make things worse?

Anyone 20 years old, and a self-professed student, spending so much time doing formatting on Wikipedia seems to be on a mission to feel important for relatively small matters of consequence -- that is why I tried to introduce that perspective into the discussion.

I'm sure that kind of person exists on Wikipedia -- probably even as a little club.

But, I thought the original purpose of Wikipedia was to provide correct and useful information to the public. If that is the case, then there should be some deference given to experts on specific subject matter -- those who do not have the time, nor inclination, to produce zillions of formatting edits in a year's time, but who deeply care about the content of specific pages. I would hope Wikipedia would want -- and defend -- those people.

All you had to do was keep the column with the production numbers. It was there -- for years. It was useful. And it fit the series, which was filmed out of the sequence in which it aired.

But, when someone is counting edits like skins, they clearly don't care about the content, nor, apparently, the people who care about the subject matter. They don't care about getting it right. It's all about them. And that is beyond sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jompaul17 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jompaul17: WOW. You just go on and on, don't you? I don't care if you're 40+. I wouldn't care if you were 10 or 70. These edits are to comply with the guidelines of episode tables for television shows that EVERY OTHER PAGE has to comply with! But you can't seem to get that in your thick head. ANd for your information, if you take a look at the history page for List of Doctor Who serials, you'll find that this exact same type of edit occurred earlier this year! Yes, the whole editing form-over-function that had been in place for years. So get your head out of your rear and stop thinking we're just attacking the Mannix page.

And by the way, I didn't make an alliance with ANYONE. They did their actions on their own accord! Check my recent contributions, and see if I posted ANYWHERE to get his help. What's that? I didn't? OH, bother for you! If you cared about the page, you'd care about it getting the proper formatting, colour tracking, and how shit the page looked before. You've given no source that these production codes are correct. If you want them so bad, add them in yourself. Else, I don't care. You can't just "keep" them, because they BELONG TO TWO DIFFERENT TABLES. Are you really so thick that you can't understand that? YOU try keeping that one column, AND fitting the transclusions in. What? You can't? OH, bother.

Your level of "argument" for this page is what's beyond sad here. This discussion is being archived, I can't deal with stuck-ups like you. Alex|The|Whovian 01:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Lets talk this out. I think you and I are getting carried away. Do you have IRC? If not, is there some chatroom we can both go to? Mylifeishard (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mylifeishard: No. We can talk here. For one article, Wikipedia does not support the addition of fansites and unofficial websites. For the other, there's no need to add another source that states exactly the same as the first one, no matter where it's from. Alex|The|Whovian 06:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok thats fine no need for the fansite. I would disagree on the second point, since the added source just provides more information. If you check the syfy source, there is more information on it. Also, it helps to have multiple sources. Also note I did add the information such as title and date into the reference tag like you had it Mylifeishard (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mylifeishard: If it provided more information, then said information would be being added to the article, but all that you're adding is the reference. Hence, no further information is being provided. I've checked the references - there's nothing new between the two. Alex|The|Whovian 06:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The killjoys reference for syfy definitely has more than the deadline reference. Again, I'm not saying get rid of the deadline reference, I'm just saying keep both sources. It is true though the Dark Matter syfy reference doesn't have anything more than the deadline reference. I still don't see what the problem is with having more than one reference. Is there a wikipedia policy saying not to have too many sources? I could see having 5 or 6 sources as too many, but two sources is very common on wikipedia.Mylifeishard (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mylifeishard: Multiple sources are fine, when the extra information is actually being added to the article - this is not the case here. Obviously, this extra information you're mentioning isn't important enough to add to the article? All that's being added is the source, which is not unique to any information in the article in question. Alex|The|Whovian 07:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the dark matter second reference can go since it doesnt add any extra information (even though its a more reliable source about the subject matter). For killjoys, that does have more information and I will add it to the article. Mylifeishard (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Mylifeishard (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright its all done. I removed the second refernce from dark matter and moved the killjoys reference to the reception section and added the extra information it has to the article Mylifeishard (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have an IP removing the series overview table at List of American Dragon: Jake Long episodes with no explanation. If you'd like to look, feel free to jump in, because I'm at my revert limit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Done. Typical IP user who believes that they're correct without any need of explanation. Alex|The|Whovian 17:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I reported them at ANV already. But yeah, just watch yourself too with your revert limit and such. And about the Mannix episode person above, if they keep going at it WP:DENY, and if you feel they are giving you personal attacks, report them. (WP:NPA) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Already WP:DENYed them - I have you to thank for that, since I saw that's how you dealt with them. And I'm about to retire for the night, so I shouldn't exceed my revert limit - hopefully by the time I wake up, they'll be dealt with. It may even be a case of needing to leave it so neither of us exceed our limits, then when the editor is blocked, revert back to the correct version. Alex|The|Whovian 17:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You really could have done that yourself instead of tagging... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Edokter: Probably, but I didn't know what you wanted to add there. (Granted, just adding "supplemental" by itself didn't really occur to me, as I'm one for information). Alex|The|Whovian 16:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear AlexTheWhovian,

Hi, it's Jp113040. Listen, I'm just sending you this message to extremely apologize about my disruptive editing, and also about Wikipedia rules about colors, it doesn't matter if it match any sort of DVD cover artwork, so anyway I now realized about following your instructions by choosing any kind of color that fits the description. So, I feel really terribly sorry about everything I said to you that night I sent you that risky message about mentioning you any nonsense of changing colors on multiple articles on Wikipedia, especially with the TV shows seasons. Well, anyway I'm really sorry about the risky things I said to you last week, and I hope you'll forgive me, and this will never ever happen again, and I give you my word, thanks!

Jp113040 12:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That analysis of Mr. Robot wasn't worth saving despite your efforts to tune it up a bit. It was a few sources laced together with a lot of opinion. I'm glad you don't mind my giving it the heave-ho. --Drmargi (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Fair enough, that's why I initially removed it in the first place before being reverted by the original editor. Alex|The|Whovian 12:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on the Talk page before making another wholesale delete of important material that addresses the derivative nature of the artwork. The creator himself has explicitly said his work is derivative. Articles about derivative artwork frequently address this topic. So, it belongs in the article, and it should not be crudely removed without discussion and consensus first.

All of the objections raised so far to my edits have been fully addressed and put down. Barring new ones, there is no reason to delete this new section.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi AlexTheWhovian, can you monitor and if necessary change the colours on the Moonshiners TV series article? Thanks. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks:  Done Alex|The|Whovian 09:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear AlexTheWhovian,

Hi, it's me, Jp113040. Listen, um. Why you didn't get my message that I sent to you a couple days ago?

Jp113040 21:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp113040 (talk • contribs)

@Jp113040: Got it. Apology accepted. Alex|The|Whovian 09:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again AlexTheWhovian, thank you for changing season colours for Moonshiners. Although a lot of TV series/seasons articles could do with colour changes, here are some I noticed recently: List of Benidorm episodes, People Just Do Nothing, All at Sea (TV series), Marooned with Ed Stafford and Monsters and Mysteries in America : thanks again. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: No problems. I'll get around to them soon enough - there's also an entire list at Category:Episode lists with invalid line colors. Or, if you wish to do them yourself, take a look at my User Page, and you'll see instructions under "Current Project". Alex|The|Whovian 05:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't known what the colour rules were until now, just noticed they were being changed and that you knew how to do it. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Once Upon a Time (TV series): you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Hermionedidallthework (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Service award templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As a whovian too, can I ask why did u revert my changing in the Mr. Robot page. I don't do changes in enwiki, mostly in trwiki. You can check my userpage in trwiki. Have a nice day. Lmattdavidsmithl (talk) Lmattdavidsmithl (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lmattdavidsmithl: The information is already in the episode table. It's not required for the lead with a new source. Alex|The|Whovian 14:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering, is it possible to make the ref link actually white? That may look better, and I don't think it would be too confusing for readers if it was. Just curious. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: That's the very first thing I thought of, but unfortunately, it's not possible. Here is the post of me asking the very same question. Alex|The|Whovian 06:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And there we are. It does look better though, now that you reformatted the square to be less "below" the ref. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

why are you removing this? I am following the original editor's scheme. Furthermore, it makes tables easier to read. please contribute, not take away.

@LakersCentral: The article was being tagged under Category:Episode lists with invalid top colors due to colour contrast issues. Please familiarize yourself with WP:COLOR and Template talk:Infobox television season#Colour, and if you need distinguishing colours, use {{Episode table}} to colour the header row, instead of the table rows. Also, you need to sign your posts with ~~~~. Alex|The|Whovian 12:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi AlexTheWhovian, I changed the colours on the List of Benidorm episodes article but I'm not sure whether the 2009 special, 2010 Christmas special and 2012 Sport Relief sketch would be better off as those Episode table/parts you made the season specials on the Moonshiners article. But if I do this should the colour of the 2009 special be changed to series 2 colours? If you agree I'll make the changes, just tell me what needs doing, cheers. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

May I point out that you haven't exactly done anything to help, either. You are the one who started this edit war. I altered the title, and then you kept changing it back, without going to the talk page. If you have anything further to say about my edits, then I suggest you take the matter to the talk page. See you there. --Bold Clone (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't see anything to support your claim that the episode title is "placeholder". How can an official title released with the episode's official premiere be considered "placeholder"? It's one thing to claim two different but valid sources are being used, but you're not even doing that. Also, to throw things up even more, I've found this, where the episode is referred to as "Series 9 Prologue". --Bold Clone (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here also uses "Season 9 Prologue" and "New Series Prologue." --Bold Clone (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bold Clone: Oh, so since I apparently "started" it, which I far from did, that gives you permission to as well. Grow up kid LOL. Oh, and top job on hitting five reverts. Insta-block if this was at ANI. Alex|The|Whovian 02:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If I may point out, you are the one who disagreed with my initial edit, and you are the one who chose to continually revert my change instead of moving to the talk page, as you should have done per policy, which you seemed to value so highly in other circumstances. Contrary to your claim of being "far from" starting an edit war, I believe you were the instigator, since you apparently had to have the last word. Honestly, editors like you are the primary reason I avoid working here, since you frequently seem to care only for your own opinion. You cite all sorts of rules and policies as if they automatically validate whatever stance you're trying to press and thus allow you to skip past the whole "talk things out on the talk page" deal, since you apparently know better than the opposition. As for me, I was standing my ground against a stubborn editor who seemed to follow the rules when it suited him, and waited for him to see the error of his ways. If he had a problem with me edits, he could stop what he was doing and move to the talk page. However, he seemed to know better than me and tried to force to the talk page, even intimidating me with "edit warring" notices. Really, it's enough to drive one mad. Now if you are done acting childishly with your personal attacks and lack of respect for other editors, maybe we could settle this like grown men on the talk page? After you...--Bold Clone (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Enough. If I see one more revert from both of you, I will block you both. Now talk it out on the talk page. If you want my opinion, "New Series Prologue" is not a title as per WP:TITLE, it has no title and it is just a moniker to refer to it; therefor no quotes. It is also not a prologue to the episode, but the entire series. Now go work it out. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. May I ask why are you reverting my edits on the Jenna Coleman page? It's been announced that she's leaving in Series 9, as the source I provided says, and Series 9 airs in 2015. So what is the problem with providing a reliable source which backs up what is said in the article about her leaving Doctor Who in 2015? 101090ABC (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@101090ABC: Made it rather clear in my edit summary: her ending year doesn't get added until she actually leaves. The table should represent what is happening, not what will be happening, hence it stays as "2012–" until she actually leaves the show. Alex|The|Whovian 16:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi yes, i agree we need a better source - all will be revealed after today anyway. Found it interesting how they accidental sent it out - should we still have the video for the promotion section of The Witch's Familiar page as it does act as a mini promo/trailer? Badgerdog2 (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Badgerdog2: Given that the official promo will be released in only six hours, I don't really think it's required that we add the leak, as it will be replaced as soon the official version is released. Alex|The|Whovian 13:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah okay, great. Badgerdog2 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by they are not necessary. Concept and development of a series would be an important part of a television series, the first season is over, it is hardly the start now. Hzh (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hzh: Start of the article, not start of the show. And you duplicated the information about Fight Club. Alex|The|Whovian 16:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm in the middle of doing the edits, and I'm now merging the content with the production section. Most of the content I added are new, so why are you deleting everything? Hzh (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you want to report him to ANI? I can't at this point in time because I am on my phone and so can't provide differences. But he is definitely edit warring with everyone at this point.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 09:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ditto51: Done: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jonny462 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: ) Alex|The|Whovian 12:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain why did you revert my Flash edit since both the Emmys and the Hugo Awards have had their results? To be clear, The Flash lost both awards so neither of them is currently pending. LunarMeric (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@LunarMeric: Did you update the sources to ones that explicitly state that the series lost? Alex|The|Whovian 12:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't.. Yeah that's my bad, sorry LunarMeric (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@LunarMeric: No problems. It appears I forgot to add this into the edit summary when I reverted, apologies for that. Alex|The|Whovian 12:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick question, with your new series overview template (the one you just put on the How to Get Away With Murder page), how would you create a Nielsen Ratings column with the average viewers and rank (as seen on shows such as The Blacklist, and Scandal?? Thanks. Rswallis10 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rswallis10: Take a look at the collapsed content at Template:Series overview#Examples - specifically the fifth example. Alex|The|Whovian 11:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize in advanced for troubling you and I don't want to make further edits on the article until I'm a bit more clear on this. When you mentioned that sources are 'always' required, was that just for the air date announcements or the actor announcements? If it includes the actors, I would like to point out that the previous season articles do not have sources for the actors. Is it just that we have to wait for the season to run its full course before removing them? Also, are you still opposed to me merging the small plot section with the beginning paragraph? That is also what was done with every other season article before it. I'm just a little confused by the inconsistencies here.

Hathomirr (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hathomirr: Go ahead with the merging of the plot, there's no issue with that at all. The references should stay as long as the article exists, and this should have been the case for the other seasons, however I wasn't around when they were airing to enforce this. Alex|The|Whovian 20:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Okay, thank you for the clarification. Hathomirr (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so your reversion on the Mr. Robot edit said you did so because it was an "unexplained removal," so here is my explanation/question: Given USA's character bios neither list the real name of Mr. Robot nor Darlene's surname on the character pages cited as sources in the Main Cast section, wouldn't it be appropriate to remove them? (I get that spoilers are bound to exist any time you enter a separate Character Description page/area or a Plot Summary section for a show or an episode, but I was thinking the Main Cast listing should be a pretty neutral, non-spoilery place and that including MR's real name/Darlene's surname isn't necessary.) Capn birdman (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Capn birdman: "I was thinking the Main Cast listing should be a pretty neutral, non-spoilery place and that including MR's real name/Darlene's surname isn't necessary." Please read WP:SPOILER. Alex|The|Whovian 21:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Right, I saw the "Sections that frequently contain spoiler warnings—such as plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc.—were already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details" part. I was thinking a Main Cast listing wasn't included in that "etc." I guess where I'm wanting clarification so I don't run into this issue in the future is: why is it ok to include their names but not say, "Ben Rappaport as Ollie Parker, Angela's ex-boyfriend"? All the other listings only seem to describe the characters as they are when initially presented within the show, but Edward and Darlene's descriptions reflect revelations made toward the end of the season. While they have always been Edward(ish) and Darlene, Elliot's understanding of his situation doesn't occur as a plot point until after their initial presentations. Capn birdman (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

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) 04:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove my information on Lucifer TV series? I had added that the Pilot was Leaked online while the series is scheduled to go on screen during 2016.I had also added a relveant source. Akshatbahety (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Akshatbahety: It's not so notable. Do take a read of a similar issue, concerning Supergirl's leak, at User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 3#Supergirl (U.S. TV series). Alex|The|Whovian 11:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been writing the summaries on Continuum (season 4); I wasn't really paying attention to how long they are, is there a recommended word count? —2macia22 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@2macia22: No problems, you're doing great work! Episode policy recommends a maximum of 200 words for episode-table summaries, but if separate articles are/have been created for the episodes, knock 'em dead with detail! Alex|The|Whovian 01:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

200 words, sounds good. Thanks! —2macia22 (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the New Amsterdam (TV series) page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the After Lately page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:GothamIntertitle.png. 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. Steel1943 (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)